Doctrine of devils

[Pastor Larry]

Very clearly, Hans, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What Russell said is exactly what Calvinism teaches. If you deny that is what Calvinism teaches, it means you don't know what Calvinism teaches.

This is a recurring problem ... You (and others on your side) don't listen. Why not cool off a bit, ask a few questions, and learn some. You don't have to agree with us. But you should at least learn what we believe and why we believe it.

There is no need for the abrasiveness and rancor of your posts. Please help to raise the level of conversation here. Don't drag it down.

 

[HanSola2000]

Are you serious, I have read your mentors and studied Calvinism for 20 years! I know what you believe. It seems you cannot handle Calvinism being flushed out into the open where it is seen for what it is.

Now stop the double-tongued duplicity. Limited atonement is not a hard concept. Who do you wnat me to qoute? Boettner? Pink? Banner of Truth writers? Calvin? Steele and Thomas? Berkouwer? Hodge? Warfield? Who do you need quoted to show you that what I said is exactly so?

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am serious. If you have read and studied this for twenty years, then you are making inexcusable mistakes.

You are correct. Limited atonement is not hard, and anyone of those names will say about it just what Russell said, and what I have said. If you have studied for twenty years, then you know that. Do you really think you won't get caught? Others have tried that and found out they do.

 

[Sularis]

larry - lo gain

ok ill ask you and russel55 a question or two

How is Jesus the Saviour of ALL?

and since you know what ALL I'm using - and others on this board are using please no weaselling on the ALL

tying into the above question

2. Does Jesus call all-everyone-you human Jesus calls you? again no wordplay on the all please - that really irritates me

and Larry - page 9 - fruits of arminianism post - tsk tsk - yer slipping - of course hrm how can i say this - Calvinists dont always appear to read or listen Larry

also HS - rhetoric is fine - but watch it - them evil calvinists are always trying to trick us - russel managed to do so to you - He qualified his yes allowing him to stay calvinistic and you didnt catch it.

Ill give you my brief answers to my above questions since the internet cafe im on has a lousy keyboard

1 - His death paid for all. Universal effectual call - where we argue is the effect and what sub-effects it spawns

2 - Yes

 

[russell55]

How is Jesus the Saviour of ALL?

In exactly the way I said above. He's the only one there is. He saves anyone who believes, and the message of the gospel is a genuine call to all who hear it.

. Does Jesus call all-everyone-you human Jesus calls you?

Everyone who hears the gospel is called. This gospel call is certainly universal to everyone who hears the gospel, however, there are people who live their lives without ever hearing the gospel , and so there are people who don't get this call. There are fewer and fewer of these people as time goes by, but this still happens.

There is also another call, an inner one, the drawing that's effectual, such as in John 6, where those who are drawn in this way are raised on the last day. Or Romans 8, where people who are called in that way are justified and glorified.

them evil calvinists are always trying to trick us

No one's trying to trick anyone. I meant exactly what I wrote exactly as I wrote it. The problem, I think, is that many noncalvinists don't understand that Calvinism is often both/and. It's not believing LESS than noncalvinists believe, but rather, it's often something similar to what noncalvinists believe PLUS MORE.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Russell55 said it well. NOthing I can add to that. Will you accept what we say we believe? I am not asking if you agree with it. But will you encourage your side to accept what we say we believe rather than making something up?

 

[HanSola2000]

Truly this is the Twilioght Zone. The "call" is a "genuine" call to "all who hear it"??? Huh?

Explain that Russell, in light of your presuppositions. You believe God only calls a select few. But millions have heard the gospel offer--the call, and died refusing that call. Now then, they refused because they were not "called"--not really. Those "called" in Calvinism, are effectually called, and must come. So how can you say all that hear the gospel call are genuinely invited to salvation when you know they are not. All those who don't come were never invited.

You see Larry, this is that nonsense we object to--ye Calvinists say one thing, and then contradcit it in the next breath. How can you not see it?

As for what I have read---You have not "caught" me, I simply refer you to Calvinists, mostly from a bygone era that were far more honest and logical than you. I reject their blasphemy, but accept thier consistency(although, it doesn't take long to catch all Calvinists in contradcitions). Your teacher John Calvin was apparently much distressed at the idea of the grace of God being offered to all men. He protested this idea and said that those "who, by extending the beneficience of God promiscuosly to all, does all in his power to diminish it".

So who do we believe, the teacher or the students??? Calvin believed the grace of God was quantitatively limited, like some kind of commodity, rather than being an infinite attribute of God. Calvin said that God has a special grace set apart for the elect before any were born! So to offer His grace to all men indiscriminatley is to dimish it---literally! Now how can I not have a knee-jerk reaction by saying things like "kookville!" Help me Larry, I'm trying!

 

[russell55]

You believe God only calls a select few.

Nope, I believe that both sorts of calls--the call of the gospel and the call of the Spirit--are to a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.

But millions have heard the gospel offer--the call, and died refusing that call.

Absolutely.

Now then, they refused because they were not "called"--not really.

No, they refused because they were intransigently opposed to God.

Those "called" in Calvinism, are effectually called, and must come.

Not quite right, either. Those who receive the inner call of the Spirit in conjunction with the genuine call of the gospel message WILL come. They are not forced to come, but they will certainly (and willingly) come.

So how can you say all that hear the gospel call are genuinely invited to salvation when you know they are not

They are absolutely, positively genuinely invited to salvation!

All those who don't come were never invited.

Oh, many WERE invited, and refused because of their intransigent opposition to God.

ye Calvinists say one thing, and then contradcit it in the next breath

If there were, then you ought to be able to show it. Can you? Contradictions can be shown by putting the propositions in A=nonA form. So show me. You can scream or holler "contradiction" all you want, but if you can't show it, your screaming and hollering is meaningless.

I simply refer you to Calvinists, mostly from a bygone era that were far more honest and logical than you.

What I'm explaining here is classical or historical Calvinism. If you don't understand that, then you either haven't read as much as you boast, or you misunderstood what you read.

Calvin believed the grace of God was quantitatively limited, like some kind of commodity, rather than being an infinite attribute of God.

Show me the quote where Calvin says grace is not an attribute, but is a commodity.

I believe that grace is an infinite attribute. However, it is also expressed freely by God according to his own choice and purpose. He is gracious to whom he will be gracious (Exodus 33:19).

And please give me the references to this quote so I can put it in context for you:

who, by extending the beneficience of God promiscuosly to all, does all in his power to diminish it.

 

[HanSola2000]

Hey Russ, ytou are not a Calvinist. Don't you believe in unconditional election? Does God call those He has elected? Does God call to salvation those He has not elected? Does God call to genuine salvationthose for whom Christ did not die? If He does, what is the point? How can they be saved without an atonement???

I'll answer your questions, but first, I'mn going to prove to you that you are not a Calvinist, or you DO IN FACT assert and believe in utter contradictions of infifnite proportions. If you answer the above questions DIRECTLY, without Calvinistic double-speak, the contradictions will be evident. Just keep answering please.

 

[Sularis]

So let me paraphrase your statements as I understand them russel - and larry you said you agreed to those statements so Im holding you to what I read.

We have 2 calls
One ineffectual and universal - the Word of God
One effectual and limited - The Spirit of God

This makes no sense - and if you respond the things of God seem foolishness to them that are perishing - Ill have you know that you dont seem to understand our viewpoint.

russel what actually scared me the most was that you had the audacity to make the gospel the WORD OF GOD - the ineffectual call, and you agreed with him Larry!

There are no two-tier systems - its a yes/no thing and sadly because most men are in opposition to God they choose no, and God lets them - and He calls them again - wooing fallen mankind as if it were a lover - over and over. God in His wisdom allows mankind to condemn themselves by their own choice. Their sins are paid for - but if they refuse to accept it which because God allows us that choice in the instant of the call - damns them.

But I do have two more questions:

Why is there a universal call that doesnt work?

Can in theory the gospel call save if man responded to it?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why does "making sense" trump "God said"? You are evaluating revelation by whether or not you can understand it. It should be evaluated by whether or not God said it.

There is a universal call that goes out to all. There is also a call that results in salvation 1 Cor 1 and Rom 8 both say that the "call" (whatever that is) results in salvation, and in those passages, there are none called who are not saved.

Why is there a universal call that doesn't work? It does work. It confronts men with their sin, and tells them of a Savior. It creates hardness and false worship (cf Rom 1).

Can in theory the gospel call save if man responded to it? What's "theory" have to do with it? The answer is Yes. The gospel call always saves if man responds to it.

 

[russell55]

Hey Russ, ytou are not a Calvinist.

You are just showing once again that you really don't know what most Calvinists believe.

Don't you believe in unconditional election? Does God call those He has elected?

Yes and yes.

Does God call to salvation those He has not elected?

With the gospel call? Yes. With the effectual call? No. If he did, then they would be saved.

Does God call to genuine salvationthose for whom Christ did not die?

Does the genuine call of the gospel go out to the nonelect? Yes. And Calvinists believe that there are many benefits for every person--including the sincerity of the gospel call--that are obtained for them through Christ's death.

From Charles Hodge, in his classic explanation of Limited Atonement from his Systematic Theology:

...it does not follow from the assertion of [Christ's death] having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to, the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears, the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures, to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable, blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died "sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;" sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone.

How can they be saved without an atonement???

They can't. But you seem to be thinking of atonement as a commodity--there's just so much of it, or something. It's not a commodity. It's atonement by sacrifice. It's effective for all those represented. Christ represented his people, and the one same sacrifice would be effective for all his people no matter the number of them. Anyone who believes is one of Christ's people, and the atonement is effective for them.

Here's Charles Hodge again, reminding us that Christ's death is not payment that is "so much for so much", but payment by sacrifice:

The Scriptures teach that Christ saves us as a priest, by offering Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. But a sacrifice was not a payment of a debt, the payment of so much for so much. A single victim was sometimes a sacrifice for one individual; sometimes for the whole people. On the great day of atonement the scape-goat bore the sins of the people, whether they were more or less numerous. It had no reference at all to the number of persons for whom atonement was to be made. So Christ bore the sins of his people; whether they were to be a few hundreds, or countless millions, or the whole human family, makes no difference as to the nature of his work, or as to the value of his satisfaction. What was absolutely necessary for one, was abundantly sufficient for all.

In other words, it's not really the number of people that counts, but the relationship of those people to Christ. Christ represented "the people" or "his brethren" in the propitatory sacrifice he made before God (see Hebrew 2:17). The sacrifice made would serve as propitiation for all of the people, no matter how many or few they were, but would not be propitiation for anyone outside of that represented group.

 

[russell55]

russel what actually scared me the most was that you had the audacity to make the gospel the WORD OF GOD - the ineffectual call,

The gospel message goes out, but people reject it. It doesn't work--on it's own--to save anyone. It is certainly necessary for salvation, but it needs to be accompanied by the work of the Spirit of God in order to save. That doesn't mean that the gospel on it's own accomplishes NOTHING. Just that by itself, it doesn't save.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Someone said, 'One ineffectual and universal - the Word of God; one effectual and limited - The Spirit of God.'

Apparently a Calvinist thought up, rather repeated this scam from another erring person.

To me this is saying the Effectual Call is the one the sovereign God ministers, while the general call to the unfortunate lost souls is the one that is clearly impotent and not not able to bring certain sinners to the Lord God. He is all powerful with one group and is profiled as weaker to the predetermined damned ones.

The Effectual Call is the stronger of the two calls. And we Arminian Christians are supposed to find this idea in the Word of God?

 

[HanSola2000]

I love how Calvinists just MAKE STUFF UP ratherthan admit they are wrong. Listen to poor Russell talk about how the death of Christ benefitsthose to whomit has no saving application:
----------------

Does the genuine call of the gospel go out to the nonelect? Yes. And Calvinists believe that there are many benefits for every person--including the sincerity of the gospel call--that are obtained for them through Christ's death.
----------------

What a crock. Calvinists believe that there are many benefits for every person? So. What you believe is not PROOF, merely autobigraphical information about yourself. But just what are these "many benefits" of a limited atonment upon the non-elect??? Tell us! One thing listed was "the sincerity of the gospel call"??? To WHOM??? The non-elect??? That is a big, fat lie! What kind of nonsense ais this? How warped to you intend to make God look to hold to your man-made traditions???

Face it, there are NO BENEFITS to the non-elect under your scheme, despite your mere assertions that there are. I know one thing, if I wasn't elect, I really wouldn't care about any of those other mythical benefits! The ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS is salvation from Eternal Hellfire! How does the atonement "benefit" a man predestined to Hell when this atonement cannot save him???

I know, I know, you will answer clearly with a response that says: Can I mombo dogface in the banana patch?


Kismi: You cannot get around CLEAR VERSES that reveal man has a free-will by telling cute little stories. You attempted no exegesis of the verses involved, and it is obvious why---they contradict Calvinism plain and simple.

 

[russell55]

But just what are these "many benefits" of a limited atonment upon the non-elect???

That they live and move and have being. That God didn't destroy creation immediately after the fall. That the rain falls on the unjust as well as the just. That God restrains evil.

One thing listed was "the sincerity of the gospel call"??? To WHOM??? The non-elect???

Absolutely. Anyone who believes can be saved because Christ made atonement to God for his people.

I know one thing, if I wasn't elect, I really wouldn't care about any of those other mythical benefits! The ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS is salvation from Eternal Hellfire!

An unbeliever doesn't care about any of the benefits anyway, not even salvation from hell. They don't care about it, because they don't believe it. Just because they don't care doesn't mean it's not valuable.

How does the atonement "benefit" a man predestined to Hell when this atonement cannot save him???

It could save him if he believed. Because it's of infinite value, no one ever perishes for lack of atonement.

I know, I know, you will answer clearly with a response that says: Can I mombo dogface in the banana patch?

Your typical response when you've shown you don't understand what you're attempting to argue against, right?

I'm done. So far you've been relatively polite, but when the insults start flying, I'm outa here....