Drawn by the Spirit

Hello Kiffen.

The Scottish Calvinist Thomas Boston said it well, “‘Go and tell everyman without exception that here is good news for him.".

He may have said it well but he said it wrong!

To make the claim that Christ died for all men is error. That there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ to save all men is true but you fall short of the truth if you tell others that Christ died for them.
Christ died for His people, "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." Matt 1:21. The whosoevers are the ones that Christ died for and only them.

Let me reverse it. Patti Smith sang a song years ago with the lyrics in it that went, "Jesus died for somebodies sins but not mine."
She is wrong to say that because she does not know if Jesus died for her sins as we do not know who Jesus died for.
The goodnews is degraded by telling others that Jesus died for them. The scriptures state that Jesus died for the elect only. If you know who they are then you can say that Jesus died for them but you cannot know who the elect are.

It is not goodnews for those He did not die for. It is terrible news.

J. Jump.

Does the Holy Spirit draw ALL men or just the elected.

RO 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law...
MT 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

Since it is many it is not all. The invitation is to whosoever will believe that Christ died for them.

johnp.

 

forgot the e-mail notification again!

johnp.

 

That should read, "but you might fall short of the truth"

johnp.

 

Being drawn is the invitation, and "Many" can represent a value from some to all. By this wording it is not possible to determine the ratio. God planned it that way so we stupid men would have no way of knowing who is and who isn't included. It is not ours to know!

 

Wes.

God planned it that way so we stupid men would have no way of knowing who is and who isn't included.

Have you become a Calvinist that you should use the word 'include'?

1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "

So for the Lord to draw all men when some men are promised no atonement would leave God capricious would it not?

johnp.

 

NO! "Include" is a normal word for me to use in normal every day speech and correspondance there is no religious connotation to my use of it!

You need to go discover the reason that is said in the book of Samual! YOU SEE, the house of ELI had already been "drawn by God" but sinned greatly before God, and they like Sodom and Gomorrah, received their judgment before God gave his gift to all mankind!

 

Romas 8 gives us the security of our salvation, but gives it to us in an interesting wording. We see from v.29 that predestination is to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. I will not deal with that here. Paul does go on though and this is what he has to say:

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.


The calling is followed by an absolute justification. Once again we go back to the arguement that wes is fond of; The calling is God's grace, the faith to believe is a gift of grace, and then that brings us to salvation.

God calls those who will receive Christ.

 

Yes, and Jesus identifies just who he called in John 17.

 

Hi Wes;
Excelent post A men. It was sweet and short right to the point.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

wes,

If you are still contending that God draws all men, then according to this passage all men are justified. None of us believe that (I Hope)

 

Go read John 17!

 

Hi Pastor Jeff;

Hmmm!
Joh 6:44 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.

When is man drawn to God? Is he drawn to God before or after conviction. You see from your limited view you see it as before conviction because you believe that man can't hear or seek God until he is saved already or born again. You may call it regenerated. Which really is all the same thing. The fact is that Since Salvation is being saved and there is no Salvation before faith and it is impossible to have faith in something you know nothing about then common sense should tell you that something is wrong here. We are not saved before Salvation because it is conditional upon faith. Now I know you're probable not going to agree. So I'll show you that is if you don't mind a layman explaining something to you.
When Paul was in Jail his jauilers came to him

and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

It's just that simple. He didn't say well have you been regenerated first. He said to believe on the Lord.

No where in scripture does it say that men cannot hear in fact the Bible says that the Gentiles will hear.
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
Now you can say all you want to that since Adam man lost his ability to respond to the gospel or that he can't hear it even that he won't hear it but you'll still be wrong.
There is no such thing as not being able to respond to the gospel That's just plain nonsense.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Pastor Jeff, this is for you, it is lengthy, but worth the read.
The Scene is Jesus with HIS Chosen Apostles AFTER the "the last supper" scene. Jesus is giving his farewell discourse to his Apostles and then in Chapter 17 prays to the Father with the Apostles listening.

The Passage from 20 to the end, could be all who come to believe through the teaching of the Apostles, but it seems fitting that this prayer is given for the benefit of the Apostles, who were soon to "lose their best friend and teacher whom they have come to know as the Son of God, in order to encourage them through the trials and death of Jesus, and whom they have not yet understood was to die, even the next day.

 

Hi john p, I have to respectfully disagree, my friend.

Thomas Boston was not espousing General Atonement for He was a Definite Atonement Calvinist as I am BUT there is a General call to all men without exception to come to Christ.

I also realize Thomas Boston is a controversial figure with some Calvinists though I think he is a perfect example of Evangelical Calvinism.

Thomas Boston made it clear,
That though there is no universal atonement, yet in the word there is warrant given to offer Christ to all mankind, whether elect or reprobate, and a warrant to all freely to receive him, however great sinners they are, or have been.

Just as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness so Jesus Christ was lifted up on a cross. All humanity is called to look to Jesus Christ and Him crucified for salvation. (John 3:14-16, John 1:29, 1 John 2:2) The Gospel is good news for the world! All are welcome!(Rev.22:17).

John Calvin himself declared the same thing,

John Calvin, Commentary on John 3:16

"Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.


You are correct that Christ death is in particular for the Elect for only those given faith benefit from the redemption. All Calvinists agree that Jesus death on the Cross was to secure the salvation for His people (Mt. 1:21), for His friends (John 15:13), for the sheep (John 10:15), for the Church (Eph. 5:23–26, Acts 20:2 , for many (Mt. 20:28; 26:28; Mk. 10:45).

Calvin stated,
Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens

There is a careful balance of both Definite Redemption and of the Universal call to all to embrace Christ and Him crucified. An imbalance in either way can lead one either in the error of either Armianism or hyper calvinism. I think many Calvinists have tried to make everything sound logical and fit logically when there is much mystery.

An excellent article by Phil Johnson on the Universal aspect of Definite Atonement may be found at

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027.htm

 

oops! wrong topic

 

Hello Kiffen.

Thanks for your reply.
If I go and tell two people that Jesus died for their sins and one is eventually found to have fallen short then I have not told the truth to one of them did I?
That's the only good news on offer isn't it?
It is not for us to tell individuals that Christ died in paticular for them but that there is sufficiency in Christ to cover the sins of the whole world. It is a promise that whosoever believes will be saved.

Thomas Boston must have been espousing a general atonement in that he tells us he believes there is good news for all. There is no good news for all.
There is a general call to all men, all that get the opportunity to hear, without exception to come to Christ. To this I agree but the call must not include that it is in paticular for a certain individual but only for those who believe, no?
If I am speaking to a person and am asked if Jesus died for them I would tell them that Jesus died for whosoever believes. Finished. If I were to engourage the person and say He did then I might be telling an untruth. He may not have died for that person.
Go and tell everyman without exception that here is good news for him. I cannot do that. Since it is God that has chosen the elect and has chosen the non-elect, and owing to the fact that He has not told me which is which, then there are some excepted and some accepted. I cannot tell one of the excepted that Christ died for him. It is not good news for all. It is pretty nasty news to many.

I also realize Thomas Boston is a controversial figure with some Calvinists though I think he is a perfect example of Evangelical Calvinism.

Is he? I've never heard of him. There was a similar thing sometime ago from a quote of Spurgeon where it is rumoured that he said that we should pray to God for all the elect to be saved and then we should pray that He elects some more! We all run off the rails at times, even the great preachers.

We should not only offer but that is a command to all that hear that they must accept Christ or die in their sins but this is not to say that Christ died for the reprobate. To say that Christ died for the reprobate would not be true would it? If it would not be true then we have no warrant to assure anyone that Christ died for them but only for those that believe.

Yes I agree. The balance is lost when you preach in paticular. It is a general call to everyone and the only ones we can tell that Jesus died for are those that believe.
We cannot preach the truth by telling all that Jesus died for all. He did not die for all.

John Calvin, Commentary on John 3:16

"Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

I question that 'reconciled'. If God has been reconciled to the world then the world is His friend and it is obvious that God is not at peace with the world. This would cause a division in the Godhead. Jesus refused to pray for the world. John 17:9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
This means that Jesus does not intercede for those that have not been chosen. Yet Mr Boston says we should tell such people that there is good news for them? He is wrong. If Jesus does not intercede for a person that person is under the wrath of God and has not been reconciled.

Also, Calvin goes onto say that 'when he invites all men without exception' then what he says must be understood in a limited sense because not all hear the word.

Does that make sense?

I'll read your link later.

johnp.

 

Heck, Peter showed the way. To keep it short...
Your responsible for killing Christ. You are dead in your sin. He died for the ungodly, (notice he didn't say EVERYBODY) Repent and trust in Christ or you will remain in sin and go to hell. That's the gospel...

post tenebras lux

 

Hi john p,

In a General sense, Christ death is for all people (races, nations)and so whoever believes will be saved.

Acts 2:39
"The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Jesus “ is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Timothy 4:10).

The Message of the Gospel is there is good news for the World (John 3:16, Isaiah 61:1-2). Yes, Yes, Yes..we agree that only the elect benefit from the good news but a declaration of Christ crucified and Him risen is our message to a lost world. Not even our Arminian friends believe those who reject the Gospel benefit from it. I think that is a straw man issue. The Gospel is good news for WHOSOVER believeth.

That is exactly the context of both Boston and Calvin.

I apprecriate your zeal for the truth on being honest but think it is incorrect. Dr. Wayne Grudem (a 5 point Calvinist) in his Systematic Theology criticizes Calvinists for such statements in that when Calvinists and even Arminians say Christ died for your sins it is always understood that the death of Christ is of no benefit to one who rejects the Gospel offer and in the end it is for whosoever believes. Even Arminians agree on that though they reject Limited Atonement. Christ atonement is for all who will embrace Him and I think many Reformed people get too nit picky purists in their speech.

Boston fought hyper calvinism in the Church of Scotland and I believe he even wrote a catechism on the Westminister. Here is his home page BOSTON and his controversial statements MARROW CONTROVERSY at least for some people.

I agree. I think our disagreement is over how to word it.

You miss the context. No Calvinist believes or preaches Jesus died in particular for every human being else all would be saved BUT in a general sense (all races, thnic groups, nations, classes et..c) He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. That is why the Canons of Dort states Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

There is Good News for the World. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.



The Bible does not command us to preach Good News to the Elect but to the entire World and Christ will gather His Elect from the world. Only these gain the benefits for only the elect are given faith.


Calvin further stated it correctly Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.

 

In every such situation, there is the teller and the hearer. The teller can tell the story once to two hearers, Both leave contented. One remains contented, the other becomes in time uncontented and goes seeking another story. Is that the fault of the teller or the hearer?

 

Sorry Kiffen I'll catch you tomorrow. Just got of the line to Ray.

I'll answer Wes.

What this all about Wes? What does it mean? The question is either completely unanswerable or it might be possible but hard to predict that all the possible combinations could be discovered.
I think that question went off in the barrel man!

If I go and tell two people that Jesus died for their sins and one is eventually found to have fallen short then I have not told the truth to one of them did I?

But anyway, my logic is sound as far as my beliefs go. This must be a truth to me even if it is not to you. That you must see?
Since I believe that Christ died for elect only then if I tell one that is not elect that Christ died for him then I lie.
That is simple.

God is Sovereign!

johnp.