Can we ALL agree that God loves and wants every person to be saved?

[Rippon]

I didn't think you were, which is why I made the "maverick" jest.

I want you, Icon, and others to understand that the view your are exposing is really more in line with what some might call "Hyper-Calvinism." Here is an article written by respected Reformed author John Hendryx, titled "The Will of God - Hyper-Calvinism Versus Historic Calvinism," which explains why this view is not orthodox or mainstream.

Here is the opening paragraph:



I hope you will take some time to read it and see that what I'm saying here is not unique to me, or in anyway an attack on you all personally. I just think this belief should be a common ground for us, and can be while maintaining our soteriological differences.

You quoted Hendryx yet didn't read his words apparently. His friend said God had no desire to save the reprobate yet also believed iin the free and promiscuous proclamation of the Gospel to all. Hendryx assured his friend that he didn't regard him as a hyper-Calvinist.

You need to actually support your view by quoting someone who agrees with you.

 

[preacher4truth]

Paul knew how to know he was saved, by believeing on Jesus as he told the Philipian jailer. But Calvinism teaches only the regenerated elect can believe, so you have no idea if you've really believed. In fact, Calvinism teaches that unless you are regenerated, you cannot possibly know what saving faith is.

The only way you can know you have truly believed is if you know you are regenerated.

Isn't that so?

I have no idea if I've really believed?

Wow, if I said this on here, I'd get a ticket.

 

[jbh28]

"Paul knew how to know he was saved, by believeing[sic] on Jesus"

Calvinists know how to know they are saved, by believing on Jesus

 

[preacher4truth]

"Paul knew how to know he was saved, by believeing[sic] on Jesus"

Calvinists know how to know they are saved, by believing on Jesus

And according to Winman I don't know if I've really believed.

Wow.

 

[Skandelon]

Now you admit to implicating Iconoclast as to living/being in darkness.

How unfortunate and uncalled for.

P4T, with all due respect brother, you keep diverting the topic to needless quibbling. I just read through the thread and Ben was clearly saying that if their is a love of God for reprobates that it must be "full of darkness." Which I take to mean that this kind of "love" only leads to a life of hopeless darkness ending with an eternity in hell. That is not about Iconoclast. It is clearly about a view concerning "two types of divine love." He DID not even imply that Iconoclast was in darkness, only you did thus causing this needless bickering.

As the author of the OP (not as a moderator) may I politely request that you stay on topic and avoid diverting with needless accusations and the like? Please.

 

[Tom Butler]

Maybe a re-reading of John 10 would be helpful.

v, 11

I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep.

v 14

I am the good shepherd and know my sheep...

v 26-27

Ye believe not because you are not my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

 

[Skandelon]

You quoted Hendryx yet didn't read his words apparently. His friend said God had no desire to save the reprobate yet also believed iin the free and promiscuous proclamation of the Gospel to all. Hendryx assured his friend that he didn't regard him as a hyper-Calvinist.

You need to actually support your view by quoting someone who agrees with you.

He said, "The Hyper-Calvinists will argue that God has no desire whatsoever that all men be saved." But, you are correct that he goes on to explain what he believes the difference in that statement and the statement regarding God not desiring to save the reprobate as it relates to hyper-calvinism. Those here appear to me to be saying the former, not the latter, which is the point I was attempting to make.

But, you should know Hendryx and I are not in agreement regarding his distinctions. I only pointed to the article to show the distinction to Icon and others who say God doesn't desire that all men be saved and it relation to Hyper-Calvinism.

I believe Phil Johnson (MacArthur's ghost writer and known Calvinistic scholar) covers this pretty extensively as well.

 

[Winman]

And according to Winman I don't know if I've really believed.

Wow.

Google The Faith of the Saints by Ernest C. Reisinger, a Reformed author. In this article he describes how unregenerated men can have a counterfeit "spurious" faith. A quote from this article;

It is impossible to say how far non-saving faith may go or how close it may resemble true saving faith.

This author is quite correct if Calvinism is true. You cannot possibly know for a certainty if you have true saving faith if you do not know for a certainty you are regenerated. It is a vicious circle of doubt.

Just copy that statement and paste it in Google and this detailed article should show up.

 

[quantumfaith]

No, no we cant.God loves His selected, not everyone. So I disagree. Do you believe Jesus died for the whole human race?

Yes I certainly do.

 

[Rippon]

He said, "The Hyper-Calvinists will argue that God has no desire whatsoever that all men be saved." But, you are correct that he goes on to explain what he believes the difference in that statement and the statement regarding God not desiring to save the reprobate as it relates to hyper-calvinism. Those here appear to me to be saying the former, not the latter, which is the point I was attempting to make.

But, you should know Hendryx and I are not in agreement regarding his distinctions. I only pointed to the article to show the distinction to Icon and others who say God doesn't desire that all men be saved and it relation to Hyper-Calvinism.

Again,Hendryx does not assign the label of hyper-Calvinist on someone who believes that God has no desire to save the reprobate.

 

[quantumfaith]

Jesus died for EVERYONE and has no desire that any should perish, but many will not heed the convicting message of the Holy Spirit and will not accept His free gift of forgiveness and salvation.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

I thought I'd add another respected Reformed scholar to the mix:


The reformed theologian Jonathan Edwards explained,

"Though He hates sin in itself, yet He may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though He has no inclination to a creature's misery [He desires none perish], considered absolutely, yet He may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality." ("Concerning the Divine Decrees," The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), pp. 527-28.)

 

[Rippon]

Yes I certainly do.

So you believe that Christ is the Advocate,Intercessor of of every single person who has and shall live? Has Christ propitiated --removed the wrath of the Father from every single person --past,present and future? That is the most absurd fiction.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T, with all due respect brother, you keep diverting the topic to needless quibbling. I just read through the thread and Ben was clearly saying that if their is a love of God for reprobates that it must be "full of darkness." Which I take to mean that this kind of "love" only leads to a life of hopeless darkness ending with an eternity in hell. That is not about Iconoclast. It is clearly about a view concerning "two types of divine love." He DID not even imply that Iconoclast was in darkness, only you did thus causing this needless bickering.

As the author of the OP (not as a moderator) may I politely request that you stay on topic and avoid diverting with needless accusations and the like? Please.

Nonsense. He DID too imply this. It IS about Iconoclast. Pay attention.

Ben never said if there is a love of God for reprobates that it must be "full of darkness." He said clearly the love that Iconoclast preaches is a "love full of darkness."

Ben said this in response:

Exactly, I accused 'his preaching' of being unbiblical, which they are.(1John 1:5) Can't help your convictions of the implictions that come on those that do such preaching. Live with it...

"his preaching" being Iconos.

and towards Iconoclasts preaching he said:

No, the OP is dealing with the pure, unmixed nature of the divine attribute of God being Love; that is the message believers are to preach to the world. You OTOH preach a love that is separated out to be “saving love” and some other kind of love which is also full of darkness.

See? You is Iconoclast. There is no "quibbling" on my part. He concisely says above that Icon OTOH preaches some other kind of love "which is also full of darkness.'" Nothing about this has a thing to do with "reprobates" as you claim.

Ben never taught that if there is a love of God for reprobates this kind of love must be "full of darkness." Provide proof by quoting.

No. He specifically said that the love that which Icono preached was a love "full of darkness."

He ended his indictment upon Iconoclast with my first quote of him above which again is this:

Exactly, I accused 'his preaching' of being unbiblical, which they are.(1John 1:5) Can't help your convictions of the implictions that come on those that do such preaching. Live with it...

...which was a response to this that I said, specifically:

He is accused of preaching a love full of darkness, which implicates the preacher. No need for that. And no mirsepresentation either.

So, you are incorrect.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

Again,Hendryx does not assign the label of hyper-Calvinist on someone who believes that God has no desire to save the reprobate.

While at the same time he affirms, "The Hyper-Calvinists will argue that God has no desire whatsoever that all men be saved."

How can that be? Read the article. It's the same two-wills of God explanation we see in Piper's article. The point is that historical Calvinists affirm God's love for all people and his desire for all to come to salvation. Do you deny that point, or are you only taking issue with my use of the Hendryx article?

 

[quantumfaith]

You are the one who misrepresents, my reference to darkness had to do with the Divine nature of God being light and in Him no darkness at all. You have turned this around as a personal attack toward me, accusing me of a personal attack against Iconoclast, when the issue I argued about is the attacks going on here against the Divine Nature of God. An issue you seem to have no problem with which goes to show my previous point about the leanings on this board.

Typical deflections from the important premise at hand...

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

So you believe that Christ is the Advocate,Intercessor of of every single person who has and shall live? Has Christ propitiated --removed the wrath of the Father from every single person --past,present and future? That is the most absurd fiction.

Yes, I believe Christ died for all humanity. (Whosoever)

 

[Rippon]

The point is that historical Calvinists affirm God's love for all people and his desire for all to come to salvation. Do you deny that point, or are you only taking issue with my use of the Hendryx article?

I most certainly deny that non-point. There have been a host of Calvinists since at least the early 17th century who have stated that God does not have a love for all. I'll dig that info up at a later time.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, I believe Christ died for all humanity. (Whosoever)

You need to go over my post point-by-point and explain why you believe the way you do.

BTW,the much bandied-about "whosoever" means believing ones.

 

[Skandelon]

Nonsense. Ben never said if there is a love of God for reprobates that it must be "full of darkness." He said clearly the love that Iconoclast preaches is a "love full of darkness."

God's love for the reprobates would be full of darkness, wouldn't it? They are born in darkness, they do remain in darkness and die and go to a dark hell, right? Either way, he is not addressing Iconoclast personally, only his view of God's love (or common grace) for reprobates. That is not a violation of any rules.

Now, please, I'm begging you. Stay on topic and stop trying to pick fights.