Doctrines of Calvinism denying the offer of salvation to the world

[JonC]

Thanks. I respect and appreciate that straight, totally non evasive answer.

I don't know why people get evasive sometimes.

The idea is that God has saved out of fallen men a people. Those who are fallen (everyone) are condemned because they have rejected the God. If they would turn to God then God would forgive them....but they won't. So everyone is "Hell bound" and justly condemned.

God has mercy on some of these people and draws them to Himself. He works in their lives, their wills and nature, in such a way that they believe. I think that this is God revealing Himself to people (I believe that God's revelation in this way is undeniable....we don't choose what to believe but we believe what has been demonstrated to us as true). These, once they are saved, are a part of the elect.

But there are those whom God does not reveal Himself to in that manner, who are not made a new creation in Christ. God does not actively cause their disbelief, but God also does not draw them unto Himself in a saving way. They remain in their sins, condemned.

 

[TCassidy]

You come up with all kinds of nice ways to say the person is damned to eternal Hell.

Just how do you say that a person will burn in hellfire for all eternity nicely? I can't think of a single "nice" way to say that.

Sin is sin.
Hell is hot.
Eternity is a long time.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 12:30 AM Pacific.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Universalist : And then will I profess unto them, you were all naughty but I saved you anyway.
Arminan: And then will I profess unto them, I knew you once but now I don't: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Calvinist: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you because I never enabled you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[MennoSota]

Nothing. I am not arguing against your belief. I am questioning why most Calvinists can't call it what it is. Why try to make it sound nice?

Why try to make humans think they deserve God forgiving their law breaking?
Good question. I don't think we do anyone a favor by feeding their own ego and pride by telling them they are loveable when they aren't. There is nothing good in my being that has not been horribly corrupted by sin. This is true before God adopted me and it is true afterwards. What is good is Christ who exchanged his life for mine. I am found in Christ and God loves the Son. Thus, by virtue of being in Christ, I am loved. It's all Christ and none of me.

Humans can never know that the gospel is good news as long as they imagine that there is uncorrupted areas in their life to be proud of. We will always think more highly of ourselves than we ought. We will always think of God as our trusted advisor rather than see Him as the one ruler who requires holiness in his Kingdom. We ought to fear the King...until we know Him as our Father.
Churches are preaching a message with an image of God that is not biblical. Churches present God as a cathartic psychologist who will counsel away our problems. THAT is NOT the God of the Bible.

 

[Calv1]

Since I have been on this forum (since 2001) there has consistently been the accusation Calvinism denies a universal aspect of the Cross. Specifically this comes up in opposition to the view that the work of the Cross was such that all who believed would be saved. In other words, the opposing position is an argument against what is said through assuming what is not said.

I realize that Calvinism (just like non-Calvinism) comes in many colors. But are there any doctrines of Calvinism that denies a universal aspect of Christ’s work? I ask because it seems that the Canons of Dort affirm that salvation was a sufficient and legitimate offer towards those who won’t believe.

I think you're a little confused. Limited Atonement is more glorifying to God than some sort of general "He died for all", He did not. Look at it the Arminian way, God sends His Son, His Son dies on the cross, open to all, YET IN MANS FREE WILL NNE COMES! In the Arminian economy that's a reality, it's just luck that some believe, and as stated it's possible that no one will come.

In what I prefer, "Definite Atonement" Christ's work had REAL CONSEQUENCES, it can be no other way, for He "Took our sins in His body", if He died for the entire world, then all of Adolph Hitlers sins would be removed, and since God is just He could not judge them twice, hence no Hell for Hitler. I don't like to get philosophical, just biblical, but this is the result.

Jesus died "For His Sheep", on the night He was betrayed, in His High Priestly prayer He said "I pray NOT FOR THE WORLD, but for THOSE YOU GAVE ME", who are the "Those", they are the one's in John 6, "You are unable to come to me unless the Father draws you", "All that the Father draws will come", "All that come I will in no wise cast out".

I understand how definite atonement may seem to weaken the cross, but on the contrary it strengthens it. Some Calvs get upset when we say "All should come", or "All can come", the fact is ALL ARE COMMANDED TO COME, this is the general call, but this doesn't mean all will come. Someone objects "Why would God call all if they are unable", this is a foolish question, for why does God command us all to follow the ten commandments when none of us can? It's for judgement, "You were called, you didn't come".

Trust me brothers, GET AWAY FROM ARMINIANISM, it's heresy, it's not biblical, if it were true we could never trust the truth of scripture, what if man in his free will got it wrong? We could never know one minute to the next if were saved, but the most important part is the bible teaches particular redemtion, were not the Jews God's bride out of all the countries in the world? Why do you not have a problem with that? Is not "Salvation of the Jews"? No problem? But when God picks people FOR HIS PURPOSE, people like you and me who are only Hell deserving sinners, someone God is unjust? Blasphemy! Are you saying God must pardon all? Must have Grace upon all?

Study your bibles, it's impossible to get through without seeing God's sovereignty throughout.

 

[JonC]

I think you're a little confused.

You are mistaken, but that's OK. If you think my view is Arminianism, I strongly suggest taking a few theology courses (or at least read a chapter of just about any reputable systematic theology text book on the subject) so you can adequately engage the subject.

Calvinism itself does not deny that the Cross carried implications beyond the Atonement of sins. Calvinism has never denied that the Cross provided the means and a legitimate offer of salvation to all men. And Calvinism has never denied that, in addition to this universal offer, Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect. The simple fact that you view those statements as "Arminianism" demonstrates that you know little of the subject. This is, however, a decent place to learn.

Edited: I am not sure how that sounded, but I don't mean that as an insult. Your reply just seemed so odd considering my soteriological views and the fact that what I've sourced on this forum has been historic Calvinism.

Do you deny that the beliefs expressed in the Canons of Dort are Calvinistic???

 

[Reformed]

As always with this type of discussion, it is necessary to define, and redefine, terms. Is there a universal aspect of the atonement? Yes, but not a promise of salvation to the whole of humanity. No one will deny that Christ's sacrificial death was powerful enough to save all of humanity if that is God's plan. Obviously that is not God's plan, because if it is, all will be saved. So, how is there a universal aspect of the atonement. In respect to the human race, the word "universal" can mean all of humanity or a sub-group within humanity. If we are talking about the Elect, then the atonement has a universal beneficial impact on this group. Also, the atonement is also a universal declaration that that Lord Jesus Christ conquered Satan, the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2).

 

[utilyan]

Utilyan, you have outright and openly lied.

I state that God is under no obligation to anyone. God us Sovereign and he chooses as he so wills.

God pardons whom he wills as a display of his grace. He makes that decision entirely independent of our opinion.

Thats exactly my point Menno! It is independent of our opinion. So he can if he wants decide to save ALL, NONE, or SOME.

"I state that God is under no obligation to anyone."

No sir in a manner of speaking you say he obligated to DAMN SOMEONE. You don't allow him the option to be universal.

You obligate God in tons of things. He can do anything he wants, but you obligate that he cannot give anyone free will.


He can have mercy on or not on whom he wishes, where you jump the gun is pressuming well he won't have mercy on someone.


God can stick his head in every toilet on earth too and has every RIGHT TO, That does not mean he does!


God does not want you to sin Menno, REALLY. AS If his command was not clear enough.

God is Sovereign and does not want you to sin, Menno.

So does God really want you not to sin? <--answer this question.

So God is Sovereign and does not want you to sin, then you must not sin at all do you?

 

[Reformed]

God is not limited. However, God will not contradict His own decrees. God has decreed that only His elect will inherit eternal life, ergo it is immutable.

 

[MennoSota]

Thats exactly my point Menno! It is independent of our opinion. So he can if he wants decide to save ALL, NONE, or SOME.

"I state that God is under no obligation to anyone."

No sir in a manner of speaking you say he obligated to DAMN SOMEONE. You don't allow him the option to be universal.

You obligate God in tons of things. He can do anything he wants, but you obligate that he cannot give anyone free will.


He can have mercy on or not on whom he wishes, where you jump the gun is pressuming well he won't have mercy on someone.


God can stick his head in every toilet on earth too and has every RIGHT TO, That does not mean he does!


God does not want you to sin Menno, REALLY. AS If his command was not clear enough.

God is Sovereign and does not want you to sin, Menno.

So does God really want you not to sin? <--answer this question.

So God is Sovereign and does not want you to sin, then you must not sin at all do you?

You do not understand obligation nor do you have the faintest clue.

 

[Revmitchell]

God has mercy on some of these people and draws them to Himself.

God draws all men to Himself and saves those who believe. John 1:12; 2 Peter 3:9; John 12:32

 

[JonC]

That's your mistake.

As always with this type of discussion, it is necessary to define, and redefine, terms. Is there a universal aspect of the atonement? Yes, but not a promise of salvation to the whole of humanity. No one will deny that Christ's sacrificial death was powerful enough to save all of humanity if that is God's plan. Obviously that is not God's plan, because if it is, all will be saved. So, how is there a universal aspect of the atonement. In respect to the human race, the word "universal" can mean all of humanity or a sub-group within humanity. If we are talking about the Elect, then the atonement has a universal beneficial impact on this group. Also, the atonement is also a universal declaration that that Lord Jesus Christ conquered Satan, the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2).

I agree.

Calvinism holds that it is not the fault of the gospel nor of Christ, offered in the gospel, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves, some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the word of life (Article 9 under the 4th Head of Doctrine).

My disagreement with @Calv1 is that I sincerely do not believe we have to deny some passages in order to focus on others. The subject of Christ's work is not man but God and God's glory. It is through this work that the Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22). Not only was Christ's death powerful enough (sufficient enough) to save all mankind, but it constituted a legitimate offer of salvation to all mankind (as the Promise of an immutable God who will forgive the repentant). The scope of Christ's work (which I've called the "work of the Cross" based on Philippians 2) is universal while the scope of the atonement extends only to those who believe.

 

[JonC]

God draws all men to Himself and saves those who believe. John 1:12; 2 Peter 3:9; John 12:32

I do believe that God draws all men to Himself. But I also believe that those who are saved are so by the work of the Spirit (I believe in a "general call" and an "effective call").

I guess you could summarize my view as that I believe the difference between the lost and the saved is God, not man.

 

[Reformed]

I agree.

Not only was Christ's death powerful enough (sufficient enough) to save all mankind, but it constituted a legitimate offer of salvation to all mankind (as the Promise of an immutable God who will forgive the repentant). The scope of Christ's work (which I've called the "work of the Cross" based on Philippians 2) is universal while the scope of the atonement extends only to those who believe.

The only issue I have here (and something I have struggled with over the years) is your phrase, "it constituted a legitimate offer of salvation to all mankind". We have already agreed that the atonement is powerful enough to save all if that was God's intention, but power is not the issue. The atonement is definite; i.e. it is intended only for the Elect. If by legitimate we are saying that the atonement is a legitimate work of God, then yes, the atonement is a legitimate offer. However, if we mean that the atonement is an efficacious offer to all, regardless of whether they are elect, then I am not sure I agree. God knows that the non-elect are incapable of receiving the gift of eternal life. Calvinists do debate this aspect of the atonement, and it often falls on the differences between Supralapsarianism or Infralapsarianism.

 

[Reformed]

God draws all men to Himself and saves those who believe. John 1:12; 2 Peter 3:9; John 12:32

Which is the classic Synergist position (or "free will position" since you have a disdain for labels). However, Calvinists can use your statement also. We believe God saves those who believe, albeit we believe because He first made us capable of belief through illumination and regeneration.

 

[TCassidy]

God draws all men to Himself and saves those who believe.

Christ draws all men via the universal Gospel call.

But John 6:44 makes it very plain. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Nobody can come to Christ unless drawn by the Father, and all those drawn by the Father will be raised up on the last day.

It is the drawing of the Father to Christ that enables the lost person to believe.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The only issue I have here (and something I have struggled with over the years) is your phrase, "it constituted a legitimate offer of salvation to all mankind".

I think many of us have pondered this point.
I look to John 6:37b, 'The one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out,' and three verses later, 'And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the Last day' This chimes in with verses like Revelation 22:17. Whoever wills may come. But the sad fact is that men and women will not come unless God draws them, not because God keeps them away, but because by nature they have wicked, unbelieving hearts (John 3:19).

But it means that we can preach like Spurgeon did and assure folk in the name of Christ that if they will come to Him, He will not turn them away.

 

[JonC]

The only issue I have here (and something I have struggled with over the years) is your phrase, "it constituted a legitimate offer of salvation to all mankind". We have already agreed that the atonement is powerful enough to save all if that was God's intention, but power is not the issue. The atonement is definite; i.e. it is intended only for the Elect. If by legitimate we are saying that the atonement is a legitimate work of God, then yes, the atonement is a legitimate offer. However, if we mean that the atonement is an efficacious offer to all, regardless of whether they are elect, then I am not sure I agree. God knows that the non-elect are incapable of receiving the gift of eternal life. Calvinists do debate this aspect of the atonement, and it often falls on the differences between Supralapsarianism or Infralapsarianism.

I think that you are right that this disagreement (even within Calvinism, historically) often falls on lapasarianism. The issue, however, can be as simple as God being both faithful and immutable. In the OT we can look at passages where God says that He will forgive IF men will repent and turn to Him.If this is true (and I believe it is) then we have to look at the basis of this forgiveness. I believe it is Christ (even in the OT).

I also need to clarify something that @TCassidy corrected me on a year or so ago (and that I've tried to be careful in this thread to clarify). The work of the Cross whereby Christ embodied God's faithfulness to save men if they would believe (universal) is not an atonement in itself. Christ died to atone for the sins of those who believe.

 

[Yeshua1]

You come up with all kinds of nice ways to say the person is damned to eternal Hell. You believe it, why not just say it?

The scriptures teach that we are all. apart from being found now in christ, been judged as guilty sinners before Holy God!