I can agree with that. Since it is not His will that any should perish and that all should come to repentance, Why does the Holy Spirit not illuminate The Gospel to all?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did a Calvinist say this?
- Thread starter Reynolds
- Start date
- Status
It is difficult because there are so many versions of "Calvinism". What you are arguing against seems to be a group (a minority group, I believe) who deny the aspect of the Cross through which God has placed everything under Christ's feet (e.g., that all judgment is given the Son and the Father judges no one).
I suppose it's been said already, but if not - it is Arminianism that bases predestination on God's pre-knowledge of events to come (of seeing end to end). I'm sure that even you believe in limited atonement (although I think you have muddled the doctrine with the views of some). I say this because I think that you would agree that Christ died to save only those who would believe (that Christ is the only way to be saved). Ultimately you will end up finding your disagreement involves predestination.
I believe in limited atonement, but I do not believe atonement is only available to some. I believe the application of Christ perfect atonement is limited.
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-356/the-atonement-real-or-potential
In the above link, Mcarthur makes it ultra complicated, but the way I read it he is saying that the atonement is not available but to some.
This is a synopsis of how D James Kennedy viewed the issue.
Examining Calvinism: D. James Kennedy: Solving Bible Mysteries
He was the preiminant Presbyterian theologian of his era.
Are they saying two entirely different things?
Last edited:
I think this gets difficult because we use "atonement" to mean the entire work of Christ (this is something @TCassidy pointed out to me last year). Jesus is the atonement ir propitiation for the sins of men, period (there is no other). All can be saved (all have an opportunity and a legitimate offer of salvation) but this potential does not equate to actual atonement. In other words, those who do not believe will perish in their sins (which would not be so if their sins were actually forgiven through the atoning work of God).
I guess I don't understand why it gets so complicated. Christ died and was raised so that all could be saved if they believed. But He also died as an effective atonement for only those who do believe.
I believe we think alike, but we disagree with Macarthur who argues against any form of potential atonement. Macarthur disagrees with Kennedy, who holds a classic Presbyterian form of Calvinism that seems to more closely align with what you and I seem to believe.
Last edited:
I think we do to an extent. I believe Christ "purchased" an opportunity that all may be saved (potential), but at the same time I believe His death "purchased" in a specific manner those who would believe. I think God had in His minds eye a people - the Church - when He sent His Son into the world.
Again, I agree, but that seems to be getting into the foreknowledge that many Calvinists claim to be an Arminian position.
In my mind, its just a big circle that goes round and round.
SheepWhisperer
Active Member
No Sir, I do not by any Calvinist definition thereof. That word "sovereign" isn't even in the King James Bible . The Bible says... Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps. It's pretty simple brother, God allows us to choose but He alone holds the consequences of our choice. Faith is not something man "Helps" God with: it is OBEYING His Almighty command to believe with your heart. John 6:29 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
The difference is how foreknowledge is defined.
The Arminian view is that foreknowledge is a divine pre-knowledge (God is perfectly omniscient and knows beginning from end). Therefore God elects those who He knows (foreknowledge) will be saved and does not elect those who will not be saved.
The Calvinistic view is that foreknowledge is much more intimate than pre-knowledge and is in fact relational (e.g., when Jesus tells some that He never "knew" them He is not referring to a cognitive knowledge but a relationship). Those who are foreknown are those who God (outside of time) "knows", i.e., His people.
The difference is predestination. The Arminian believes in predestination to salvation based on foreknowledge (pre-knowledge). The Calvinist believes that this view places the deciding factor of salvation on man and not God (God makes the way but man saves himself via this provision). The Calvinist believes that God elects based solely on His will (not on a knowledge of who will choose Him). The Arminian believes this means God saves people against their will.
Good thing I am neither a cal nor arm because I believe none of those things.
It definitely seems to complicate what Jesus taught so simple.
These things go beyond the gospel (Jesus never taught that such things are simple, but that we study diligently and don't lean on our own understanding).
First, consider the scope of God's will in 2 Peter 3:9. Leading up to verse 9, Peter is telling his readers that those who reject the imminent coming of the Lord forget that is the same Lord who created all there is, and the physical world is being maintained (by God) for the coming day of judgment. But it is also being maintained for another purpose. In 2 Peter 3:8 the Apostle writes, "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The Apostle is putting things in perspective for the reader. God is not constrained by time. What may seem as an inordinate amount of time to us is a mere tick of the second hand to God. But why did the Apostle write those words? Because in the often quoted verse 9 he writes, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." So, does God, indeed, will that "any" should not perish? Yes. That is what the text says. But does "any" mean every person who ever lived or ever will live? I think the answer to that question is a qualified no.
Because of the context of the entire chapter, I believe the "any" in verse 9 is the entirety of the Elect, i.e. all those God has predestined for salvation. I also believe the text makes an unspoken appeal to the nature of God. God accomplishes everything He decrees. For God to decree something, and being unable to accomplish the thing He decrees, makes God less than omnipotent. At this point those on the Synergist side will say that God gave man free will, so therefore God desires that all come to Him, but He must allow them to make a choice. Where that view fails is that it creates a huge hole in God's nature. Is man's will greater than the desire of God? Is man's free will actually a self-autonomous free will that can act independent of God? Or could it be that man's free will (if that term is even accurate) is subservient to his nature; if dead in sin a distorted will that is in bondage to sin (Romans 6:6), or a will that has been liberated and free to serve God (Romans 6:18)? I believe scripture teaches it is the latter. God is having patience with this sinful, corrupt world until all of his Elect (the "any") are brought into the fold.
It's common knowledge that Adam and Eve spoke in King James English...[emoji41] [emoji56] [emoji57]
Rev, we just refer to you as pagan. [emoji6]
If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reynolds,
Let me add a P.S. to post #73.
You stated that you started this thread to discuss evangelism. So, let me address that topic within a Monergist vs. Synergist context.
If Charles Spurgeon was alive today, he would plead with those in his audience to throw themselves upon the mercy of God, and the forgiveness of sins offered through faith in Jesus Christ. Spurgeon wrote:
Here was as rabid a Calvinist as ever was preaching about "earnest endeavors to bring sinners to the Savior". While Spurgeon understood the necessity of evangelism, he also understood that the Great Commission had more in mind than just a evangelistic transaction. What good is it to buy healthy food at the supermarket unless you take it home, prepare it, and then eat it. Until you have consumed it, there is nothing it can do for you. The same can be said about any evangelism method that concentrates on decision more than discipleship. We must not just tell people about the Savior, we must call them to a life-long commitment to follow Him. I am not saying that Synergists disagree with my last statement. Indeed, very few Synergists will argue that discipleship is unnecessary. But no honest person will disagree that there are stark methodological differences between the two theologies. Spurgeon was not afraid to teach theology and doctrine in his evangelistic services. If the Spirit of God can illumine a dead sinner, why can he not illumine him into all truth (1 John 2:27)? We know that man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). God's word is the fuel of discipleship. It is through knowing God's word that we grow as Christians, and how we lead others to Christ.
Let me add a P.S. to post #73.
You stated that you started this thread to discuss evangelism. So, let me address that topic within a Monergist vs. Synergist context.
If Charles Spurgeon was alive today, he would plead with those in his audience to throw themselves upon the mercy of God, and the forgiveness of sins offered through faith in Jesus Christ. Spurgeon wrote:
Here was as rabid a Calvinist as ever was preaching about "earnest endeavors to bring sinners to the Savior". While Spurgeon understood the necessity of evangelism, he also understood that the Great Commission had more in mind than just a evangelistic transaction. What good is it to buy healthy food at the supermarket unless you take it home, prepare it, and then eat it. Until you have consumed it, there is nothing it can do for you. The same can be said about any evangelism method that concentrates on decision more than discipleship. We must not just tell people about the Savior, we must call them to a life-long commitment to follow Him. I am not saying that Synergists disagree with my last statement. Indeed, very few Synergists will argue that discipleship is unnecessary. But no honest person will disagree that there are stark methodological differences between the two theologies. Spurgeon was not afraid to teach theology and doctrine in his evangelistic services. If the Spirit of God can illumine a dead sinner, why can he not illumine him into all truth (1 John 2:27)? We know that man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). God's word is the fuel of discipleship. It is through knowing God's word that we grow as Christians, and how we lead others to Christ.
Sure you do. The one thing Hankins and Mohler agreed on was that SBC doctrine revolves around Calvinism to varying degrees. You're just a distant Calvinist.
For me, it depends on the conversation. If we talk about the five points as a conclusion, then I'm typically labeled "Calvinist". But if we discuss how we get there, then sometimes I'm not because I do not believe Calvinism has cornered the marked with it's Penal Substitution Atonement (....so then I'm labeled "heretic" instead).
Sure you do. The one thing Hankins and Mohler agreed on was that SBC doctrine revolves around Calvinism to varying degrees. You're just a distant Calvinist.
For me, it depends on the conversation. If we talk about the five points as a conclusion, then I'm typically labeled "Calvinist". But if we discuss how we get there, then sometimes I'm not because I do not believe Calvinism has cornered the marked with it's Penal Substitution Atonement (....so then I'm labeled "heretic" instead).
Well the way you described those doctrines I hold to none of them. Further, I reject being labeled by men (i.e. calvinist, arminian) I see it as contrary to scripture. Paul was very clear on this.
...pagan...[emoji41]
- Status