GOD'S OPERATIONS OF GRACE BUT NO OFFERS OF HIS GRACE pt2

[George Antonios]

Wrath for what?

Good point. The wrath was never really on them as they've been elect since eternity past.

By the way: few Calvinists ever face up to the fact that they were elect OUTSIDE OF CHRIST for they were chosen FIRST to be placed into Christ LATER.

 

[tyndale1946]

Wrath for what?

Because your father is Adam and don't argue with me Jon... Argue with scripture... Brother Glen

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

 

[JonC]

Because your father is Adam and don't argue with me Jon... Argue with scripture... Brother Glen

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

I'm not arguing. I was asking JesusFan.

I learn from seeing how others express their understanding.

But since you volunteered....

What does it matter if our sin debt was paid before we were born and we were already justified?

 

[Iconoclast]

Good point. The wrath was never really on them as they've been elect since eternity past.

By the way: few Calvinists ever face up to the fact that they were elect OUTSIDE OF CHRIST for they were chosen FIRST to be placed into Christ LATER.

This is an off topic post

 

[JonC]

This is an off topic post

So was this

That you and JonC do not understand is sad, but not the topic of this thread

You never did explain what you think I do not understand.

 

[JonC]

I think the bottom line is the author of the article, Joseph Hussey, held an understanding that is outside of mainstream Calvinism (it is an extreme version of Calvinism). Most would consider it hyper-Calvinism. I have friends who are not Calvinists but instead hold a primitive Baptist doctrine that is in line with Hussey's thinking.

In terms of hyper-Calvinism, Hussey's view is very close (if not identical) to the early 19th century "anti-missions" movement.

I once was a Calvinist, but I never have been a hyper-Calvinist or a Primitive Baptist (although @tyndale1946 calls me primitive all the time ). So obviously I disagree with the article.

That said, to be fair Hussey's view is the logical path for Calvinism (most just don't go down that road).

 

[kyredneck]

Saved from what?

HEY! That's MY question!

 

[JonC]

HEY! That's MY question!

You can borrow it, if you want.

 

[tyndale1946]

HEY! That's MY question!

I told a guy at work one time Jesus saves... He looked me straight in the eye and said yeah but Moses invests... He was probably Jewish, ya think?... Brother Glen

 

[Iconoclast]

Re the OP, I have read some of that article and I think he is almost totally wrong. He was somewhat of a crank. There are gimmicks and techniques of preaching that I think nowadays are overdone and to the point of blasphemous. I'm talking about the constant jokes and pop culture references, the patriotic and sports stories woven into sermons and so on. Besides that there is the legitimate question of how much anyone really can convince someone to come to Christ. But Joseph Hussey went way beyond that and condemned any proposition or offer of the gospel. The charge of hyper-Calvinism seems well earned for him. I was looking through the article trying to see what he really did preach and so far I haven't been able to find what that is. Then of course, if you go to the end he slams anyone who writes out their sermons. Does he have any sermons you can look up or was it all wrapped up in his head?

Not sure yet. He has some ideas that are different for sure.
I have just begun to sort out some of his ideas, but want to see how he proceeds before going all out.

 

[Iconoclast]

Good point. The wrath was never really on them as they've been elect since eternity past.

By the way: few Calvinists ever face up to the fact that they were elect OUTSIDE OF CHRIST for they were chosen FIRST to be placed into Christ LATER.

Calvinism is not the topic of this thread. Start a thread on that if you want.

 

[JonC]

Re the OP, I have read some of that article and I think he is almost totally wrong. He was somewhat of a crank. There are gimmicks and techniques of preaching that I think nowadays are overdone and to the point of blasphemous. I'm talking about the constant jokes and pop culture references, the patriotic and sports stories woven into sermons and so on. Besides that there is the legitimate question of how much anyone really can convince someone to come to Christ. But Joseph Hussey went way beyond that and condemned any proposition or offer of the gospel. The charge of hyper-Calvinism seems well earned for him. I was looking through the article trying to see what he really did preach and so far I haven't been able to find what that is. Then of course, if you go to the end he slams anyone who writes out their sermons. Does he have any sermons you can look up or was it all wrapped up in his head?

Yep. Beyond that very early (it is the theme of the article, from what I can tell).

 

[Iconoclast]

Getting back on topic;

Now offers of Christ suit not with this doctrine of Eternal Union, but agree best with that doctrine of proud nature, which denies all sorts of Union before Faith.

Offers stand not with any one Gospel-Mystery, as the truth is in Jesus, but stand with all as the things are only concerning Jesus.

They stand not with the mystical quickening of the elect in their Head, much less of their being set down together with Him in heavenly places. How shall we preach, you cry? How?


Preach the Gospel as Christ hath commanded; as the Father hath absolutely declared, and hath raised us up together with Christ, even when we were dead in sins, as saith the Holy Ghost, Eph.2:5, which quickening and raising up was certain and sure even before we believed on Him.

For Christ rose from the dead long before the Ephesians were converted; and they were quickened in him virtually, when they were unbelievers in themselves. Therefore offering of God's Grace, which was eternally settled in Christ, does wickedly and directly strike at these Covenant Settlements.

Shall we then dare preach the Gospel against these settlements of the Gospel?


If we do, after all our boasting of faith, and pressing of faith, and offering of Christ, it's plain that we have little or no faith in the foundation, or we should not want to lay another foundation. {“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” I Cor.3:11.}

We must not preach the Gospel so as to suit the errors of the Anti-Unionists, for they give no testimony that they know the things of God savingly and experimentally by the power of the Holy Ghost in vital implantation of Gospel truth, but merely take them upon sport, one from another.

?????

 

[DaveXR650]

For Christ rose from the dead long before the Ephesians were converted; and they were quickened in him virtually, when they were unbelievers in themselves. Therefore offering of God's Grace, which was eternally settled in Christ, does wickedly and directly strike at these Covenant Settlements.

I have a problem with Hussey's pattern of logic. Even if you concede that the elect Ephesians were infallibly saved when Christ rose from the dead you still have the question of whether at some point in time those elect Ephesians did have to believe the gospel. And if they did truly have to believe the gospel at some point in time then can you truly say they were saved before they did that? I know this sounds impossibly confusing and ridiculous to waste time on but it comes up a lot in trying to understand the way God works and the way he interacts with humans. If God determines that a thing will occur then we all believe that it will infallibly occur. But does that not still mean that the thing must ACTUALLY occur at the appointed time. And if so, then why can it not be that a person or preacher who makes an "offer" or invites someone or warns someone about sin and God and the need to repent be a part of God's plan. And why can't that offer or attempt at convincing someone to believe be a necessary thing to happen in a true sense - and yet still the result be part of an infallible predetermined plan by God. A plan that was infallibly going to happen no matter what - yet all the parts leading up to the result were absolutely necessary and real. If you can wrap your head around this you will see that although Hussey goes too far, Calvinism, even high Calvinism like Owen and Edwards believed makes sense. Now I've probably confused everybody, including myself.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have a problem with Hussey's pattern of logic. Even if you concede that the elect Ephesians were infallibly saved when Christ rose from the dead you still have the question of whether at some point in time those elect Ephesians did have to believe the gospel. And if they did truly have to believe the gospel at some point in time then can you truly say they were saved before they did that? I know this sounds impossibly confusing and ridiculous to waste time on but it comes up a lot in trying to understand the way God works and the way he interacts with humans.

If God determines that a thing will occur then we all believe that it will infallibly occur.

But does that not still mean that the thing must ACTUALLY occur at the appointed time.


And if so, then why can it not be that a person or preacher who makes an "offer" or invites someone or warns someone about sin and God and the need to repent be a part of God's plan. And why can't that offer or attempt at convincing someone to believe be a necessary thing to happen in a true sense - and yet still the result be part of an infallible predetermined plan by God.


A plan that was infallibly going to happen no matter what - yet all the parts leading up to the result were absolutely necessary and real.

If you can wrap your head around this you will see that although Hussey goes too far, Calvinism, even high Calvinism like Owen and Edwards believed makes sense. Now I've probably confused everybody, including myself.

Hello D-650,

I find it a bit confusing on one hand, but odd that he gets certain things correct.
Early on he took direct aim at what I believe.
I was asked to go over it, so I am.
I do not want to just react against it totally, because I believe some believe identical to him.
I do not want to caricature his position, so I am trying to carefully sort through his words.

I believe God has ordained not only the people to be saved from their sins, but also the means, prayer, preaching, teaching,speaking the truth in love.
So far if I am understanding him, he is saying;
gospel= proclamation of the finished work of the cross.

results=salvation of the elect, sure damnation of reprobate non elect.

Maybe you have read past where I am, but working through slowly despite the off topic posting confusing the issue.

 

[tyndale1946]

I think the bottom line is the author of the article, Joseph Hussey, held an understanding that is outside of mainstream Calvinism (it is an extreme version of Calvinism). Most would consider it hyper-Calvinism. I have friends who are not Calvinists but instead hold a primitive Baptist doctrine that is in line with Hussey's thinking.

In terms of hyper-Calvinism, Hussey's view is very close (if not identical) to the early 19th century "anti-missions" movement.

I once was a Calvinist, but I never have been a hyper-Calvinist or a Primitive Baptist (although @tyndale1946 calls me primitive all the time ). So obviously I disagree with the article.

That said, to be fair Hussey's view is the logical path for Calvinism (most just don't go down that road).

Well I guess you can all blame me because I'm the one that sent Icon, Hussey... The only primitive Jon and I share, is he beat to the BB by 3 days... Brother Glen

 

[Iconoclast]

Well I guess you can all blame me because I'm the one that sent Icon, Hussey... The only primitive Jon and I share, is he beat to the BB by 3 days... Brother Glen

I find he has some solid points. I am trying to work through it carefully.
If you think I am messing up, jump in and correct me.
Most are not interacting with His main points yet.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Eternal justification in this...

"Now offers of Christ suit not with this doctrine of Eternal Union, but agree best with that doctrine of proud nature, which denies all sorts of Union before Faith."

 

[JonC]

Well I guess you can all blame me because I'm the one that sent Icon, Hussey... The only primitive Jon and I share, is he beat to the BB by 3 days... Brother Glen

Yea, I realized you sent the article. I believe Hussey missed the mark when it comes to his use of Scripture as he seems to look to Scripture (in the article) to support his theology rather than taking Scripture as it comes (regardless of the level of validity of his view).

His view does seem to be what would become Primitive Baptist doctrine in the 19th century.

 

[JonC]

Eternal justification in this...

"Now offers of Christ suit not with this doctrine of Eternal Union, but agree best with that doctrine of proud nature, which denies all sorts of Union before Faith."

Do you believe we were justified prior to faith?