Is Calvinism a False Doctrine?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed Sutton: If "The Infinite, Personal, God Who is There", as per Francis Schaeffer's 'shorthand' description of the Lord, in His mercy, doesn't remember sins, how in the world is a finite man possibly supposed to?

HP: What does the quote from Schaeffer have anything to do with what you say following the quote? Maybe there was no connection intended. If so, why drag Schaeffer into the sentence???

 

[DHK]

Now let there be no question in the readers mind as to the import of the point I am making. Here was one of the statements DHK made that precipitated my questioning, and I quote. My point is that IF DHK really believes that all have not nor possibly will all hear the gospel, is he trying to say that a Just God is going to damn man for failure to believe that which they know nothing of?? Is he trying to say that none of those that have not heard will not see damnation? If any will be damned that have not heard the gospel, for what will they be damned?? DHK has clearly stated that "ONLY THING" that will damn a person to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ. Again, can one reject that which they know nothing of?

Can the listener get a grasp of the legitimate questions that arise from his statements? I certainly can.

HP, Do you believe the Scripture or not. Do I have to post it again for you? Apparently so!

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Now, either you believe the Scriptures or you don't. You can bring all your human reasoning into foray, your "but what ifs...". and "suppose..." etc. But I don't go by your suppostions, conjectures, and hypotheses. I go by the Word of God. The Word of God clearly says that the only thing that will condemn a man to Hell is the rejection of Christ as Saviour. Thus you have a choice: You believe the Bible or you don't and give in to your doubtful disputations. Which is it?

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a good thread discussing evangelism and the Gospel in the OT



The point is - that if the OT saints were all saved by the ONE Gospel -- and yet their "detailed understanding" of the life death and resurrection of Christ was "less than ours is today" -- it can not be argued that "better story telling" makes us "more saved".

Rather salvation becomes a "relationship" issue as Christ stated PRE-Cross in John 15 regarding "branches IN ME" -- truths applicable to pre-cross saints.

Salvation is the same "relationship issue" that we see in Romans 8:16 "the SPIRIT bears witness with our spirit that we ARE the children of God".

Salvation is the same "relationship issue" that Christ said it was in John 3 when speaking precross to Nicodemus.

Salvation is the same "relationshp issue" that Paul defines it to be in Romans 2 EVEN in the "extreme case" of those "who have no access at all to scripture". (Rom 2:13-16).

The Jews made the very argument that many today are making - they said that because THEY had the Bible - THEY had the Word of God -- then in truth only THEY could be saved -- no matter how they actually behaved. This was what Paul fought against in Romans 2.

This fits perfectly with Paul's argument in the same book "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ" Romans 10 -- because right there Paul defines what that "word of Christ is" - and he shows that it even includes the Ps 19 "word" that goes out to all the earth - the Word of our Creator - Jesus Christ as manifest in the "things that have been made". That is a "word" whose scope reaches EVEN to that Romans 2:13-16 gentile with no Bible that is "approved" while Bible-reading Bible-aware Jews were going to be condemned.

That is the death of the argument "Salvation by better more accurate story telling" rather it is the one who abides IN Christ - who responds to that John 3 moving of the Holy Spirit EVEN if they are Adam or Able or Seth or Enoch or Isaac (saints with not one word of written text) - even if they have limited access to "exhaustive details" when it comes to the gospel.

in Christ,

Bob

So the question asked is "could those OT saints reject that which they knew nothing of?"

In other words - they did not know Joseph or Jesus or Mary or Paul or the Sanhedrin or the 3 days in the tomb or the cross or the Romans or ...

Having never read one word of the NT - no not even of Matthew Mark Luke John -- could they still 'reject" the Gospel - Reject salvation - go to hell?

The answer is "yes" EVEN at the point of Pre-FLOOd OT man!

Because as it turns out -- "God IS there even when our books are not!". And it is "God" that is being "accepted or rejected" in the final analysis.

One man spends 20 minutes talking with me and comes away from it saying "hey I think I really like that guy".

Another man gets my resume, and a summary of my autobiorgraphical data from family and friends - also spends 20 minutes talking with me and says "hey I think I like that guy".

Is the argument that only the one with "all the data" has a chance of liking or not liking me?
Sort of a "you can't really meet Bob without the paper work"?

OR is the argument that you are meeting the PERSON and one can just as easily turn against or in favor of a PERSON in 20 minutes even though they may not have "all the paper work"? I argue for the latter statement.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gone fishing. See you all in a couple of days. I look forward to reading all the responses when I get back.

 

[Rippon]

The Word of God clearly says that the only thing that will condemn a man to Hell is the rejection of Christ as Saviour. Thus you have a choice: You believe the Bible or you don't and give in to your doubtful disputations. Which is it?

People who not hear the Gospel in any form are justly condemned for their sins , not for rejecting Christ .

 

[gb93433]

People who not hear the Gospel in any form are justly condemned for their sins , not for rejecting Christ .

Jn 16:8-11, "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

 

[webdog]

Jn 16:8-11, "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

Great Scripture, especially the bolded.

 

[DHK]

People who not hear the Gospel in any form are justly condemned for their sins , not for rejecting Christ .

I have already posted Scripture to the contrary.
You have only posted your opinion.
You have to do better than that.

 

[BobRyan]

Jn 16:8-11, "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

Indeed - a world wide work of the Holy Spirit.

In John 1 "Christ is the light that coming into the world ENLIGHTENS EVERY MAN" and yet men "loved darkness rather than light".

In fact as John 1 says "He came to His own and His Own received Him not"

in John 3 we have "He did not come into the world to condemn the world... but the world is condemned because they love darkness rather than light".

John 3
16 ""For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 ""For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18 "" He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 ""This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: "He did not come into the world to condemn the world... but the world is condemned because they love darkness rather than light".

HP: (I am not directing this to BR in particular, but only mention BR because he brought up the verse. But of course BR is welcome to respond!)

Now here is an interesting verse. I thought the condemnation of men was because all men reject Christ? Where is the rejection of Christ mentioned in this verse?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

A man goes to prison for murder. He is given the penalty of life without parole. The man is awarded a pardon from the governor but refuses to accept it and is forced to carry out his sentence in prison. Let me ask the reader, is the man condemned and in prison because he murdered someone or because he rejected an offered parole?

A man lies on his death bed with terminal cancer. A doctor comes in and tells the man that he has found a cure for his cancer. The man refuses the cure and dies. Let me ask the reader, was the cause of death directly due to the cancer or did he die because he rejected the cure?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK:

This is not true, and is a false theology.
The rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour, and his work on the cross, is the only thing that will damn a person to hell.

HP: Joh 3:19 "AND THIS IS THE CONDEMNATION, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

What if one were to use the statements of DHK in his refutation of my comments, to defeat the Scripture that I just presented? Here are some of DHK's comments to me.

DHK: “I believe the Scriptures.” “Again I believe what the Bible believes; not what man teaches.” “I accept the Scriptures as infallible and true” “Either you believe it or you don't.” “Do you believe the Scripture or not. Do I have to post it again for you?” “Now, either you believe the Scriptures or you don't. You can bring all your human reasoning into foray, your "but what ifs...". and "suppose..." etc. But I don't go by your suppostions, conjectures, and hypotheses. I go by the Word of God.”“You believe the Bible or you don't and give in to your doubtful disputations. Which is it?”

HP: Do any of these remarks add any merit to DHK's position or destroy the Scriptural validity of my or any others position in reality? Are any of these remarks even honestly useful in meaningful debate?

What if, on the other hand, we were to take the sum of all the passages we could gain concerning why men receive condemnation and are damned, and honestly try and harmonize them? What might be the outcome? Could we then simply and rightfully assume as DHK has clearly stated, that “DHK: THE ONLY THING that will condemn a man to Hell is the rejection of Christ as Saviour?” (EM) I think not.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: People who not hear the Gospel in any form are justly condemned for their sins , not for rejecting Christ .

HP: You are correct in your assessment and in line with Scripture.:thumbs: Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Note that their specific sinful deeds are their demise and are the cause of their damnation, not simply the rejection of Jesus Christ who they might not have ever even heard of. Certainly they had some knowledge of God that they did not retain, but having such knowledge does not in any way equate with having the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel itself. If they had retained the knowledge of God that nature had taught them, they might well have had the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel at some point in time, but they did not and God simply gave them up to their vile affections.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The Calvinistic notion that the "only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ" is simply not founded in Scripture. Not one verse has been set forth that states or implies that such is ‘the only’ damning sin. Such a notion is mere conjure, an unfounded presupposition, and a prime example of the false system of thought expressed by the Calvinist. If one does not desire to be labeled as a Calvinist, they would do well to steer clear of the acceptance of such clearly established Calvinistic dogma. When one holds to a notion that is decidedly Calvinistic, not held to by any other system of thought that I know of, they are placing themselves clearly within the camp of the Calvinist. If one is bent on holding such Calvinistic dogma up as their own beliefs, such a one should not be surprised when they are labeled as being Calvinistic.' It comes with the territory. The same can be said for the dogma of OSAS.

 

[DHK]

The Calvinistic notion that the "only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ" is simply not founded in Scripture.

First, I am not a Calvinist and yet I am the one that proves you wrong in this area. I gave you at least two very good Scriptures in this area and there are scores of others. But for the time being I will stick to these two. What will you do with them? Cut them out of the Bible? Deny them? Write them off as untrue? They stand as the words of Christ himself. Is he a liar?

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There it stands--the reason why people are condemned--unbelief in Christ! Yet you continue to express your disbelief in the very words of God. Amazing!

 

[TCGreek]

Whether Calvinist or not, John 3:18 states an undeniable truth. Amazing!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I gave you at least two very good Scriptures in this area and there are scores of others.

HP: You avoid the issue at stake DHK. You said

“DHK: The rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour, and his work on the cross, is the only thing that will damn a person to hell.”

Where does it state or insinuate that the “ONLY THING" that will damn a person to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ? Simply reading that into the text is not proving it from the text.

It is one thing to quote a Scripture and say that it proves your point, and a whole other issue to substantiate that claim with solid evidence.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I am not a Calvinist

HP: What would you say to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. when he tells us that he is not a liberal? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Amy.G]

HP: You avoid the issue at stake DHK. You said

Where does it state or insinuate that the “ONLY THING" that will damn a person to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ? Simply reading that into the text is not proving it from the text.

It is one thing to quote a Scripture and say that it proves your point, and a whole other issue to substantiate that claim with solid evidence.

Rejecting Christ results in:

Jhn 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins."

If you die in your sins, you are condemned, which is the result of unbelief.

We already had this discussion in another thread.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Rejecting Christ results in:

Jhn 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins."

If you die in your sins, you are condemned, which is the result of unbelief.

HP: You as well miss the point. We all agree that if one does not believe in Christ he will die condemned in his sins. That is NOT the issue at stake. The issue is whether or not the ONLY reason we are condemned is due to the rejection of Jesus Christ as DHK stated.

Amy, if you believe DHK is correct, set forth the Scripture that makes that claim. The Scripture you mention does not state or imply any such thing. It does not say why all are condemned, but rather only what a sinner has to do to be saved, i.e., believe in Christ. This verse does not claim that all have or all will even have the opportunity to believe in Christ, but rather that all will be condemned if they do not have the opportunity to believe, or if they refuse to believe having had the opportunity. Again, it does not state or imply that failure to believe is the ‘only reason’ the sinner is condemned. That is plainly an unsupported presupposition of the Calvinist.