COMMON-ground?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Nope..,. just that IF we fall on either side of this question, we will run into "tough love" as either we will be forced to have a God who Loves, but can be denied by human willpower, or who else determines who gets saved, period and is more Allah like than Yahweh like!

Clarify your last statement; Really you need to read the "Doctrines Of Grace" book & stop misrepresenting Calvinists.

 

[Iconoclast]

Frankly, I think if you read the articles in their entirity you would see their motive is similar to mine. Consider what MacArthur said at the beginning: "I am troubled by the tendency of some - often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine - who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency."
If you go back and re-read the other thread, I concede this point. I understand that MacArthur distinguishes saving love from his common love, but the fact that some Calvinists here don't seem to even do that, but instead seem to insist that God only hates the reprobate by denying ANY level of divine love for them proves them to be outside the mainstream.

So, MacArthur agrees with Pink on one point but takes a strong stand against Pink on another. You seem to focus on their agreement and ignore the disagreement. The fact is, that the stand JM is taking against Pink is the same one I'm taking against those on this board who would agree with Pinks views on this subject. So there is no reason to accuse me of misrepresenting these men or their articles.

Additionally, this is NOT just about God's common love for all mankind. It is also about his genuine desire for all to be saved, which again is not something these Calvinists deny. In fact, as shown, some of them say those who don't affirm that God wants all to be saved are "hyper" in their views. That is not my opinion, that is a stated and verified fact.

It's fine to disagree with these men, but don't blame me for it.

Skan,
I did thank you for at least offering a basis for your claims and posting statements from grace people.
Yes, you did acknowledge the seperation of the two kinds of love spoken of.
there is an issue as we saw last week on another thread...dealing with stage cage calvinism...which is addressed in churchs who believe the doctrines of grace. We should speak often about God's love.....In Christ.....and God's goodness to all men,as I have alluded to in other posts.
Some of what the article is addressing is because there is a resurgence of calvinism world wide.
People are tired of the watered down,emotional mush that leads to false God dishonoring religion. They study the bible and see the truth and severity of the issues involved and almost focus in on the severe side...in an unbalanced way. This I have seen several times along the way.It should be addressed and corrected.
I do not believe God loves all men savingly....or all men would be saved.
I do not believe God loves men in hell.
I read alot these days and I can assure you that this article is misleading as it was used.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

OK so let me see if I can nail this shut....

God loves the Elect as a Father loves His Children. God loves the Non Elect as a Creator loves that which He creates. The Creator's love for the created does not extend to salvation.

Blessings,

 

[Iconoclast]

Are you telling us the newest name for “Hyper Calvinism” is “biblical Calvinism”??? As you write your “bible truth” in read letters??? Are you really reasoning that your oxymoronic red letter euphemism for “Hyper Calvinism” through the fallacy of offering a proof surrogate of if “we understood biblical Calvinism” …so then we should thereby accept on your authority that your view is biblical and therefore not the “Hyper Calvinism” which preaches God’s love is for the pre-selected few??? Well…if so my friend, your rhetorical argument is not only lacking any form of validity but is freakishly appearing to have some kind of weird cultic twist to it with that red letter thing goin on.

I noticed you didn’t comment on 1John 1:5.

(1Jn 1:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Here we have - “The grand message of the Gospel, the great principle on which the happiness of man depends.” ~ Clarke

Yet, you attempt to preach the Gospel message, the Word, the Light that God put into the world is full of darkness and despair for those poor non-preselected creatures who must remain ignorant and not have the real ability to know the truth of God’s love and are without hope to ever receive the promise.

But Jesus/the Light/the Word delivers the promise of Good News differently than Iconoclast:

(Joh 12:32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

(1Ti 2:3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(1Ti 2:4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(1Ti 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(1Ti 2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

(2Pe 3:9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

(Rev 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Iconoclast apparently hasn’t heard of the instructions about the message that we are to preach, or maybe he is just being disobedience because of being opposed to preaching God’s love to all the world? You Iconoclast, seem ashamed of the word “love” and go on to boast that the Book of Acts does not contain the word “love”, but the Book of Acts repeatedly speaks of being filled with the Holy Spirit and what does the Word say about the function of the Holy Spirit which fills those who believe the Truth???:

(Rom 5:5) And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghostwhich is given unto us.

Maybe your hope is in something other than the love of God? Perhaps those of the doctrine of pre-selection election grace don’t “really” need to even seek the love of the truth, maybe they are too proud to confess God’s love and to freely return God’s love freely given to all, maybe they would rather count on God forcing it upon them?! Is that the only way they can understand an Omniscient, Omnipotent God could make them bow, not by His revelation of love (Omnibenevolence) but by deterministic force? Some understanding of of God's Holy attribute of Love you have...

Benjamin,
I will respond in green to calm you down,and avoid your paranoid red ink comments
Once again I see we are not close to being on the same page. You seem disturbed by whatever I post. That's okay to a certain extent, but before you go off ranting it would be nice if you read with comprehension what I post before you disagree.....or call me a child of the devil, or teaching darkness:laugh: For example here in your reply you say this;

](Rom 5:5) And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghostwhich is given unto us.[/FONT][/SIZE]

If you look back on the closed thread...you will see that it was me who offered romans 5...and romans 8:28-39 into the whole discusssion:thumbs:
So now you post it as if it is new to the discussion?Then you say;

]I noticed you didn’t comment on 1John 1:5.[/FONT][/SIZE]

(1Jn 1:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

I like this verse alot...God is Holy ,Just ,and Good,...he is not the author of sin....what kind of comment do you want? Nothing I have posted suggests otherwise. I think you have a root of bitterness inside you that you hold onto that makes you get all frustrated or something.....your thoughts run together and eventually are not coherent. Your hatred of some of the doctrine is causing you to have a break from reality it seems.here is another example of it;

You Iconoclast, seem ashamed of the word “love” and go on to boast that the Book of Acts does not contain the word “love”, but the Book of Acts repeatedly speaks of being filled with the Holy Spirit and what does the Word say about the function of the Holy Spirit which fills those who believe the Truth???:

I pointed out [not boast], that the book of acts and the apostolic preaching does not sound like the false idea you offer. I also pointed out that the word does not appear....but that the love of God is in the Son.....
You can not even be honest enough to agree with me on this...but post this last personal charge against me as if I did not qualify my statement.

Benjamin..sorry you are struggling with these teachings so much...but keep studying and maybe the light you speak of will dawn on you. There are many resources available...but if you do not use them it will not help. many of us would like to help, but you seem unable to process what is being put forth, as your responses show a dis-connect with the issues being discussed.
A non -cal has a hard time knowing what calvinism is, much less "hyper- calvinism'....if someone says the word elect...you go into a rant, and robert snow posts...calvinism bad....

 

[JesusFan]

Clarify your last statement; Really you need to read the "Doctrines Of Grace" book & stop misrepresenting Calvinists.

I have read calvin institutes, systematic Theology of Hodge, and Berkhof theology......

not trying on these posting to give accurate either Arms/cals...

just showing what theology we tend to end up with IF we hold 1 divine Attribute superior to another...

I was actually parroting Hyper Arm/Hyper Cal!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have read calvin institutes, systematic Theology of Hodge, and Berkhof theology......

not trying on these posting to give accurate either Arms/cals...

just showing what theology we tend to end up with IF we hold 1 divine Attribute superior to another...

I was actually parroting Hyper Arm/Hyper Cal!

Yes & you were scaring me professor

 

[Luke2427]

In the other thread it was clearly shown that many Calvinistic scholars (including Calvin himself) affirm that "God loves all people" and genuinely "desires all people to be saved."

I presented these quotes in effort to show that this CAN and SHOULD be COMMON-GROUND for Arminian (non-cal) and Calvinistic believers.

In the process we learned that many here don't share this "common ground" with men like John Calvin, J.MacArthur, J. Piper, RC Sproul, C. Spurgeon, JI Packer, J. Edwards, Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others.

So, my question is this: How can we rightly call what some here believe is "Calvinism" if Calvin himself and many of his mainstream followers wouldn't affirm this doctrine? Since "hyper-Calvinism" (what Phil Johnson has called this view) tends to connote anti-evangelism, what term would better fit those here who "out Calvin the Calvinists?" Maybe "extreme-Calvinism" or "Radically Reformed?"

Why not just affirm the clear biblical revelation regarding God's love and desire for the salvation of all people? Why must this be a point of contention?

Who said God does not love all people?

I wonder if this whole thread is a strawman.

God does love all people- but not the same. EVERYONE SHOULD agree on that.

For just one of many examples that could be given: God does not have filial love for people who are not his children.

It would be MADNESS to deny that.

And the bible does confirm that God get no pleasure in the death of the wicked, etc, etc, etc...

But NNE with any rational theology denies that God damns them just the same. Whether he does it with sadness or not- he saves some and he damns (condemns) other.

Nothing could be plainer in the Bible than that.

I despise hyper-calvinism not because it doesn't push us to love everybody and sing cumbaya with our arms all locked together around the world-

I despise it because it ignorantly robs God of glory. The Gospel is to be preached to every single person that we can possibly preach it to. But for this reason- God's name deserves to be published as broadly as possible. The hyper-cal in their effort to keep the Gospel from being something to be proffered (which I agree with) swings the pendulum in the dangerous direction of failing the Great Commission. The Great Commission is about proclaiming the name of God to every creature.

Anyone who does not wish to do this has a HORRENDOUS problem with their theology.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When they tell you that because you werent a Christian (in their mold) at the time of your infants death that you put your child in hell, then you know your dealing with a Hyper Calvinist

Who doesnt love you Baby!

 

[JesusFan]

When they tell you that because you werent a Christian (in their mold) at the time of your infants death that you put your child in hell, then you know your dealing with a Hyper Calvinist

Who doesnt love you Baby!

or if you run into a Christian who would teach that NONE need to get preached to, that NO Evagelism needed today, as God will save his elect ones regardless!

Or IF one holds that God has a "Double predestination" Plan going, that he actively elects both the saved and the damned, skirting close to hyper circles!

 

[glfredrick]

God’s Love for the world which He created is so great that He gave His Only Child to redeem the creatures He has made, for whososever will believe in His act of Love. Do you see how one can run into error in trying to compare that you have a “specific” greater love for your children to God’s Holy Love being that He sacrificed His Own? God promised His Only Begotten for the world from the very foundation of it, freely and not because a single one of His creatures deserved it…would you be willing to make that kind of sacrifice, give your most loved and only child who is perfect and without sin to show your love to the world so that they could believe (Key question – In what do we believe?)…or is God’s Love so great it is beyond making such a comparison of loving His own more as we would be inclined to do? Jesus willingly died in faith of His Father’s Love for the world…In Christ; through His faith of that great love we are saved!

God freely sacrificed His Only Child in Love; in that we get a glimpse of how great His Love is and how it is beyond such earthly comparisons. That is the light we are to preach…a message of God’s Love, there ain’t no darkness in that Love. Amen

Would you then hold to a universalistic perspective concerning God's salvation?

 

[glfredrick]

or if you run into a Christian who would teach that NONE need to get preached to, that NO Evagelism needed today, as God will save his elect ones regardless!

Anyone who would hold to that perspective is heretical and not a follower of the Christ of the Bible.

The other argument you made about double predestination is a logical argument drawn from some understandings concerning the Doctrines of Grace. Double predestination is false because we are ALL damned to die a sinner's death save for Christ, our only hope.

 

[Skandelon]

Who said God does not love all people?

I wonder if this whole thread is a strawman.

God does love all people- but not the same. EVERYONE SHOULD agree on that.

I suppose the articles quoted from Piper and MacArthur were stawmen arguments too?

Maybe you missed this part of the article:

"I am troubled by the tendency of some - often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine - who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe.

I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.
The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us "God is angry with the wicked every day." It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect. Those who hold this view often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world.

Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." [1] He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world...") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"[2] - MacArthur

For just one of many examples that could be given: God does not have filial love for people who are not his children.

It would be MADNESS to deny that.

And if you'd read through the thread you'd see that I conceded that Calvinist affirm a different kind of saving love for his elect within your system. MacArthur explains that quite well in his article and this post was never intended to deny that distinction. It was to at least acknowledge what SHOULD be our common ground.

And the bible does confirm that God get no pleasure in the death of the wicked, etc, etc, etc...

But NNE with any rational theology denies that God damns them just the same. Whether he does it with sadness or not- he saves some and he damns (condemns) other.

Nothing could be plainer in the Bible than that.

I agree. The question is this: On what basis does God condemn them?

Scripture says they perish because they refuse the truth of the gospel so as to be saved.(2 Thess 2:10) Calvinists seem to teach that they are condemned because God didn't elect to save them, but to leave them in their fallen condition and thus without even the ability to accept the gospel truth....a condition HE determined to be the natural condition of all men from birth due to Adam's Fall.

I despise it because it ignorantly robs God of glory. The Gospel is to be preached to every single person that we can possibly preach it to. But for this reason- God's name deserves to be published as broadly as possible.

I totally agree. But I'd just add that the other reason is, "how will they believe unless they hear?" The gospel is preached to make an appeal to the whole world, "Be reconciled to God." "For whosoever believes will be saved." Its that appeal which STRONGLY implies all men have the ability to respond.

The few proof texts used by Calvinists to suggest people DON'T have that ability can clearly be shown to be written within the context of Israel's being temporarily hardened from the truth and thus not even having access to the gospel yet (ref John 6). The other is clearly in reference to man's inability to submit to God's law, not his ability to believe in the One who fulfilled the law for us. (ref. Rom 8). Thus, there is NO biblical reason to suggest that the gospel is insufficient to supply all that is needed for men to have the ability to respond to its appeal.

Luke, also you only touched on one point of the OP. You neglected to address the part about God's desire for all to be saved. Granted you did say, "And the bible does confirm that God get no pleasure in the death of the wicked, etc, etc, etc..." But if you don't get pleasure in your kid lying, doesn't that suggest you desire that he not lie? In the same way can't you confirm that God desires all men everywhere to repent and be saved? If he doesn't take pleasure in their perishing, isn't that the only conclusion, especially in light of all the passages which clearly say that is His desire?

 

[Skandelon]

OK so let me see if I can nail this shut....

God loves the Elect as a Father loves His Children. God loves the Non Elect as a Creator loves that which He creates. The Creator's love for the created does not extend to salvation.

Blessings,

You neglected the aspect of God's desire for all to be saved...

 

[JesusFan]

I suppose the articles quoted from Piper and MacArthur were stawmen arguments too?

Maybe you missed this part of the article:

"I am troubled by the tendency of some - often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine - who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe.

I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.
The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us "God is angry with the wicked every day." It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect. Those who hold this view often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world.

Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." [1] He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world...") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"[2] - MacArthur

And if you'd read through the thread you'd see that I conceded that Calvinist affirm a different kind of saving love for his elect within your system. MacArthur explains that quite well in his article and this post was never intended to deny that distinction. It was to at least acknowledge what SHOULD be our common ground.

I agree. The question is this: On what basis does God condemn them?

Scripture says they perish because they refuse the truth of the gospel so as to be saved.(2 Thess 2:10) Calvinists seem to teach that they are condemned because God didn't elect to save them, but to leave them in their fallen condition and thus without even the ability to accept the gospel truth....a condition HE determined to be the natural condition of all men from birth due to Adam's Fall.

I totally agree. But I'd just add that the other reason is, "how will they believe unless they hear?" The gospel is preached to make an appeal to the whole world, "Be reconciled to God." "For whosoever believes will be saved." Its that appeal which STRONGLY implies all men have the ability to respond.

The few proof texts used by Calvinists to suggest people DON'T have that ability can clearly be shown to be written within the context of Israel's being temporarily hardened from the truth and thus not even having access to the gospel yet (ref John 6). The other is clearly in reference to man's inability to submit to God's law, not his ability to believe in the One who fulfilled the law for us. (ref. Rom 8). Thus, there is NO biblical reason to suggest that the gospel is insufficient to supply all that is needed for men to have the ability to respond to its appeal.

Luke, also you only touched on one point of the OP. You neglected to address the part about God's desire for all to be saved. Granted you did say, "And the bible does confirm that God get no pleasure in the death of the wicked, etc, etc, etc..." But if you don't get pleasure in your kid lying, doesn't that suggest you desire that he not lie? In the same way can't you confirm that God desires all men everywhere to repent and be saved? If he doesn't take pleasure in their perishing, isn't that the only conclusion, especially in light of all the passages which clearly say that is His desire?

God loves all people, as he is involved in their creation, they are to a degree still "made in image of God"
BUT
God is a God of holiness and love, both Infinite levels
So God desires to save those whom He has loved, and that group will be in the Elect of God...

God used election in OT to select out Abraham and coming Jewish nation based upon His Covenetal love, like way he established a new Covental love towards His NT elect, the saints...

basis of ANY getting condemned is due to ALL being found by god to be "In Adam" so the fall of Adam brought ruin spiritually to ALL born after him, while only those found by God "in Christ" will be redeemed and heaven bound!

 

[Skandelon]

God is a God of holiness and love, both Infinite levels
So God desires to save those whom He has loved, and that group will be in the Elect of God...

So on the one hand you argue that God does have a common love for all his creatures, but doesn't desire all of them to be saved? What about the points made by other Calvinistic scholars which do affirm this desire?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You neglected the aspect of God's desire for all to be saved...

I have not worked that part out yet....if your sending a non-elect to hell & then saying you love him ?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Psalm 5:5-6. 'You[God] hate all workers of iniquity. You shall destroy those who speak falsehood. The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.'

Proverbs 6:16-19. 'These six things the LORD hates, yes seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.'

Mal 1:3. 'Yet Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated, and laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wildreness.'

Steve

 

[Benjamin]

Would you then hold to a universalistic perspective concerning God's salvation?

Are you able to recognize a distinction between the views of "Universal Atonement" and "Universalism"? If so, then you should understand when I tell tell you that I am not a Universalist. If not, I suspect you might be looking for a strawman.

 

[JesusFan]

So on the one hand you argue that God does have a common love for all his creatures, but doesn't desire all of them to be saved? What about the points made by other Calvinistic scholars which do affirm this desire?

Understand what you are asking here...

Would say that God DOES both love and desire all to be saved in the sense that Jesus died and atoned for all peoples BUT

That per His own wisdom plans purposes He deceeded to have chosen amoung the reprobate race of man His own peculiar peoples, to be called after His own name...

God chose Abraham, who was following moon god at the time...
God chose Moses, while he was wandering around
God chose to make jewish peoples into isreal, His own OT Covenant peoples
God chose the Apostles

ALL of them were God selecting and chosing out of the rank and file His own men to further his plans and purposes

their is a mystery here as to who/why/how, but do know that God was doing all of this, per His divine Will, and that as it is written 'The hidden things are in God" Per Isaiah 48:6!

 

[glfredrick]

Are you able to recognize a distinction between the views of "Universal Atonement" and "Universalism"? If so, then you should understand when I tell tell you that I am not a Universalist. If not, I suspect you might be looking for a strawman.

I well understand the difference and I am not looking for a strawman. I am decidedly against intentional fallacies like that and prefer to simply deal with truth.

I just have difficulty in understanding your take on these things, for what you write seems to indicate that you are traveling toward universalism. If the atonement is universal, then you have an additional problem to deal with, i.e., the inability of God through Christ to actually accomplish what He set out to do via the atonement. If he took the sins of the whole world (every soul, forever) then why are some still not saved. There are two responses, either Christ did not atone for every one or universalism. There really is no middle ground.