Geographical Calvinism

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Tim,

Are you an Arminian? If not, what is your problem? The teachings of Arminianism are unBiblical and carnal. There is nothing disrespectful about calling it what it is. But, if you would like to get up in arms about disrespect, perhaps, I could find some not so nice words that you had for Calvinists which was deleted by me from my website, or even some words on this very website by you that were not very respectful, and we could compare.

The bottom line is that I find Arminian beliefs to be carnal and you find Calvinism to be offensive. I am as opposed to the false teachings of Jacobus Arminius as you are to the Biblical teachings of John Calvin, Jonathon Edwards, CH Spurgeon, William Carey, and RC Sproul. I don't respect Arminianism and you don't respect Calvinism. Deal with it and go on.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[webdog]

I am as opposed to the false teachings of Jacobus Arminius as you are to the Biblical teachings of John Calvin, Jonathon Edwards, CH Spurgeon, William Carey, and RC Sproul.

Substitute false for biblical and you would be correct.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am as opposed to the false teachings of Jacobus Arminius as you are to the Biblical teachings of John Calvin, Jonathon Edwards, CH Spurgeon, William Carey, and RC Sproul.

Substitute false for biblical and you would be correct. </font>[/QUOTE]If, as you say, Calvinism is a "false teaching" then why has God blessed the ministry of Calvinists (John Newton, Spurgeon etc)? Is God now blessing those who teach false doctrine? Just a question.

Martin.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Martin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am as opposed to the false teachings of Jacobus Arminius as you are to the Biblical teachings of John Calvin, Jonathon Edwards, CH Spurgeon, William Carey, and RC Sproul.

Substitute false for biblical and you would be correct. </font>[/QUOTE]If, as you say, Calvinism is a "false teaching" then why has God blessed the ministry of Calvinists (John Newton, Spurgeon etc)? Is God now blessing those who teach false doctrine? Just a question.

Martin. </font>[/QUOTE]God can, and does use anything and anyone. The same question can be thrown back to the other side. Why does God bless the work of Charles Stanley, John Hagee, Billy Graham, Andy Stanley, etc. who teach a "carnal" doctrine?

 

[shannonL]

AAG,

Your premise is only a silly assumption to those who don't want to admit that even though they can't explain it, God in His sovereign plan for the world and the salvation of men uses men to carry out His will and purposes.
God accomplishes His perfect will with imperfect individuals yet God never gets slowed down in carryiing out His will. Be it the salvation of souls, the rising and falling of nations etc... He is always right on time.
The only part we play in salvation is the proclaiming of it that is all I know.
For me personally all I understand is the fact that some have heard others haven't it is up to those that have heard to herald the Good News.
God delivered Israel from Egypt yet He used Moses to do it. Did God have to wait on Moses to mature those 40 years or was that all part of His plan? I say it was all right on time.
I'm saying I'm with you on your thoughts. But I just think out of those people groups that haven't heard yet eventually they will and God will use a "man" to accomplish that right on time.

Two things that I have pondered lately cocerning calvinism.
One is the fact that before sin even entered into the world in the perfect enviorment of the Garden Adam and Eve made a "choice" to disobey God. I may be just a hick from the sticks but to me that says that God made man with a free will. Some of you calvinist enlighten me here.

Second, it seems that those who would be considered arminians by calvinists will often times be duped into universalism. We see this today in evangelical ecuminical movements. All this interfaith dialogue etc... You know the discussions. If a man has never heard the Gospel will He be saved by what He does know with the truth he does have etc....
Well, if one takes calvinism to extreme we have some that would be less than concerned about evangelism because after all God has His elect.
My wife grew up on the mission field in the heart of Africa. Every once in awhile there would be a strong calvinistic missionary come around. She remembers very clearly the wife of one missionary sitting in her kitchen sobbing and praying that her soon to be born baby would be one of the elect. That is messed up IMHO.

I'm just saying these different views seem to intersect if not approached with balance.

All I understand is God does the saving we do the sharing. He knows who will be saved, we don't.

I guess what you want the answer to your question to be is this:
Those who have heard have not carried out their responsibility of proclaiming the Gospel. Therefore some who would have accepted didn't get the chance because others negated their responsibility? Even so God who is sovereign can still work within our disobedience or lack of responsibility to accomplish His will.
Dude I don't know I just tell people about Christ and leave it up to God. We should just be globally minded as well as local. I suppose if we could figure this all out then God would be a little smaller than we would want Him to be.

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Tim,

Are you an Arminian? If not, what is your problem? The teachings of Arminianism are unBiblical and carnal. There is nothing disrespectful about calling it what it is. But, if you would like to get up in arms about disrespect, perhaps, I could find some not so nice words that you had for Calvinists which was deleted by me from my website, or even some words on this very website by you that were not very respectful, and we could compare.

The bottom line is that I find Arminian beliefs to be carnal and you find Calvinism to be offensive. I am as opposed to the false teachings of Jacobus Arminius as you are to the Biblical teachings of John Calvin, Jonathon Edwards, CH Spurgeon, William Carey, and RC Sproul. I don't respect Arminianism and you don't respect Calvinism. Deal with it and go on.

Joseph Botwinick

No Joseph you are smarter then that. What you said was just to stir up people. It was worth nothing more. I think if you look back you will see my tone has changed.
I wrote nothing insulting to you on your blog. I wrote some good pts that were true and from the heart. You are just the type to delete them. YOu think you have all the anwers and have shut your mind. Except to inuslt wich you most likely see as rightoues anger or something, most of you post do not help, add, prove to anything but just stir people up.
I am not arminian or a follower of the teachings of J. Calvin. Stand and jump up and down all you want Joseph many people find calvin's teachings unbiblical. Most do as a matter of fact (although I admitt numbers don't always make right). Why can't you debate from a spirit of love. One of the most and greatest accusations of calvinism is that they totally disgregared the chacater of God's love. INstead drumming on and on about His wrath, anger and hatred.
Just a suggestion. But go ahead and be a crochtey old man who knows it all but shows not forth Christ's spirit. It does not effect my eternity.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by shannonL:
Well, if one takes calvinism to extreme we have some that would be less than concerned about evangelism because after all God has His elect.

I, a Calvinist, am in total agreement with you here, Shannon. You make a very good point here. As a matter of fact, this is the very mentality that the Calvinist, William Carey, fought against:

In 1785, Carey was appointed the schoolmaster for the village of Moulton. He was also invited to pastor the local Baptist church. During this time he read Jonathan Edwards' Account of the Life of the Late Rev. David Brainerd and the journals of the explorer James Cook, and became deeply concerned with propagating the Christian Gospel throughout the world. His friend Andrew Fuller had previously written an influential pamphlet in 1781 titled The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, answering the hyper-Calvinist belief then prevalent in the Baptist churches, that all men were not responsible to believe the Gospel. At a ministers' meeting in 1786, Carey raised the question of whether it was the duty of all Christians to spread the Gospel throughout the world. J. R. Ryland, the father of John Ryland, is said to have retorted: "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid and mine."

web page

My experience today has given me little knowledge of actual hyper calvinists who exist today. One such person would be Fred Phelps, who not only doesn't care about obeying the commands of his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, to preach the Gospel, but also, instead, preaches a message of hate and glories in the destruction of anyone who is not like him. I know very few Calvinist today who are anything like him.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[shannonL]

I will agree JB that hyper calvinist are hard to fnd. To many calvinists are labeled as hyper by those who think all calvinists are hyper.

I'm neither 100% calvinist nor am i a arminian. I just can't commit myself totally to calvinism when election/free will has been debated for centuries.

I must concede though that one of my favorite sites on the web is the Spurgeon Archives.
I'm currently reading a series of messages on the church by J.C. Ryle. Man that ole boy could preach.
Seriously though if a man wants to read anything with meat on it He sure isn't going to find it at the local christian book store.
Everything written today is about methods nothing about doctrine or at least very little.
I'm not a SBC person anymore but I like to keep up with it. IMHO it will ultimately be the Reformed SBC brethern that will preserve the conservative views that have been reclaimed. Because alot of the younger movers and shakers of the SBC don't care a wit about the ole ship.
I'm drawn to reform writers because they are concerned with doctrine more so than others. Yet I will always be Pre trib, pre-mill. But if you want to read good stuff the reformers are the ticket alot of times.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

The question is why the elect are so geographically concentrated, presumably in the U.S. How do you know that's true?


Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[doulous]

Two things that I have pondered lately cocerning calvinism.
One is the fact that before sin even entered into the world in the perfect enviorment of the Garden Adam and Eve made a "choice" to disobey God. I may be just a hick from the sticks but to me that says that God made man with a free will. Some of you calvinist enlighten me here.

Shannon, I'll respond from the Calvinist interpretation of scripture. You are absolutely correct. Mankind was created with a free will. Adam was created sinless but not without the ability to sin. Eve was deceived but Adam sinned willingly. This is why the bible teaches that original sin came from Adam and not Eve. But even though Adam sinned willingly, He did not sin independent of the sovereign decree and omniscience of God. Creation, the fall, the Redeemer, calling of the elect, eternal bliss for the saints and eternal punishment for the damned are all part of God's sovereign plan.

 

[whatever]

To back up what doulous wrote, this is from the WCF:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

This is what historic Calvinism has to say about free will.

 

[shannonL]

I can live with what the WCF says I think? I have always believed that God knew that Adam would sin. Are you saying because of God's sovereign plans that Adam had no choice but to sin because that was how God had sovreignly designed things?

I know R.C Sproul tends to believe that God is the author of sin. How does he conclude this?

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by shannonL:
I know R.C Sproul tends to believe that God is the author of sin. How does he conclude this?

Are you sure about that? This article suggests otherwise.

 

[doulous]

Originally posted by shannonL:
I can live with what the WCF says I think? I have always believed that God knew that Adam would sin. Are you saying because of God's sovereign plans that Adam had no choice but to sin because that was how God had sovreignly designed things?

I know R.C Sproul tends to believe that God is the author of sin. How does he conclude this?

Shannon, let's take a step back for a moment. I am going to ask you to participate in an demonstration that (hopefully) will get my point across.

I want you to find a blank piece of paper. Don't proceed with anything else until you get that piece of paper. You got it? Good. Now...I want you to draw a nice sized circle in the middle of the paper. You can make it up to half the size of the paper. Try to center it in the middle. Done? Good. No...draw a horizontal line in the middle of the circle BUT don't go all they way across. Stop short of each side of the cirlce. Finished? Great! You should now have a circle with a line in the middle that stops short of each side. Let me tell you what this symbolizes.

The line is linear time and the circle is God. We exist on linear time. On the far left side of the line would be the birth of Adam. The far right of the line would be the end of linear time and the ushering in of the eternal state. Somewhere on that line is the birth of Christ, the resurrection, the birth of Abraham Lincoln, WWII, your birth and my birth. Still to come are all the saints who will come to faith before the end of linear time. This concept should be simple enough. The cirlce, as I said before, is God. God encompasses time and space. He sees the beginning and the end all at the same time. He is not bound by the constraints of time. Consider these texts:

2 Peter 3:8 8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Revelation 1:8 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Psalm 90:2 2 Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.

God is completely and utterly omniscient. Nothing escapes His sight. But it is more than that. Nothing escape His sovereign decree. Did God decree that Adam would sin? Yes. But why? Was God a cosmic kill joy that wanted to destroy the perfect garden of Eden and plunge man into the travails of sin? No. In order to glorify Himself, God created a physical realm, spiritual realm and subjects to serve Him. Even though part of the angelic realm would revolt and even the race of man would sin, God would still be glorified by judging Satan and his demons and redeeming a people for Himself from among mankind. God allowed even the rebellion of men and angels to occur in order to prove His holiness and majesty. If we were to do something like this it would be boasting. But since God is the greatest being, it is not boasting it is actually necessary. God deserves all the glory, honor and praise.

Did God create sin? I posted on this on my BLOG. God did not commit sin but He allowed sin to come into being. He created the conditions for sin and created sin in the abstract. Therefore when Adam sinned, sin moved from the abstract into reality. Man did not create sin, he committed sin.

Hope this helps.

 

[russell55]

Election is based on the choice of certain people placed at the right time and place?

No. God's choice of people's time and place is logically subsequent to his choice of people for salvation. Your question would only make sense if God's choice of people's time and place was the logical precursor to his choice of people for salvation.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
The question is why the elect are so geographically concentrated, presumably in the U.S. How do you know that's true?

Excellent point.

 

[Andy T.]

She remembers very clearly the wife of one missionary sitting in her kitchen sobbing and praying that her soon to be born baby would be one of the elect. That is messed up IMHO.

Shannon, how is this any different from a non-Calvinist mother who frets over her child if he will choose on his own to be saved? Both are positions of despair and are not godly.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> She remembers very clearly the wife of one missionary sitting in her kitchen sobbing and praying that her soon to be born baby would be one of the elect. That is messed up IMHO.

Shannon, how is this any different from a non-Calvinist mother who frets over her child if he will choose on his own to be saved? Both are positions of despair and are not godly. </font>[/QUOTE]I also have to wonder if the wife of the missionary really believed in God's sovereignty, and trusted God?

I am a 100% full-time single dad of two wonderful young kids. My kids have no contact with their mom. Their mom was abusive, crazy, etc. Back when I didn't know if I'd get full custody, I was terrified about what would happen to my kids if they ended up with their mom. My Christian counsellor's response to my fear was, "You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that your kids don't belong to you. They belong to God."

The truth of that statement was undeniable. It was both scary and comforting at the same time. It all came down to one thing - do I trust God with my kids?

It's a daily struggle, though God often pours on me that peace beyond understanding. But peace or not, I MUST trust God with my kids. Like I said, the truth of that statement is undeniable.

[Edit: When he said "belong to God" I did not take that to mean they were among the elect. I took that to mean what I believe he intended it to mean: God is in control of their future, not me.]